Update Delay Log

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success, which adds value beyond annotations. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or side effects, but annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The provided endpoint and required parameters enhance transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then a relevant link, usage details, required parameters, and API info. It is front-loaded with the key action. The inclusion of the link adds some length but is justified for attachments. Overall, it is efficient without being overly verbose.

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's complexity (5 parameters, nested object), full schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the partial update behavior, lists required parameters, provides the endpoint, and includes a guide link for attachments. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the return structure, and error conditions are not mentioned. Still, it covers essential context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters (already in schema) and mentions partial update behavior, but adds little new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. The link to the guide may help with attachments, but it's not directly about parameter semantics.

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 that the tool updates a single Delay Log, specifying it's a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. It includes the required parameters and endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't differentiate from other update tools, the resource name is clear.

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 Daily Log records and notes that only supplied fields are changed. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The link to the guide offers additional info but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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