Update Context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and the modified object is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the purpose. Including the endpoint and API category adds reference value but slightly increases length. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required, 2 optional) and a nested object without an output schema, the description provides the core operation but lacks detail on the 'settings' object structure and return format. Stating 'returns the modified object' is vague. More context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description redundantly lists required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The 'settings' object is described as having additionalProperties, but the description does not explain typical use or structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing context for Document Markup records and returns the modified object. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'context', distinguishing it from create or delete tools. However, it could more explicitly define what a 'context' is, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating existing Document Markup records but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'create_a_new_context' or 'delete_context_by_id'. No 'when not to use' advice or alternative recommendations are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.