Update Instruction Type

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces by stating the update behavior and return of modified object. The description adds context about partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed') and the HTTP method (PATCH), which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 four sentences, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage details, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is fairly concise and well-structured, although the API endpoint information might be considered non-essential.

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?

For a simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the endpoint, partial update behavior, required parameters, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or validation, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description lists the required parameters but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already states. It implies that 'name' is the only updatable field, but that is clear from the schema.

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 'Update the specified Instruction Type' and 'Updates the specified Daily Log records and returns the modified object', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, list, delete, and show. The verb and resource are specific, and the context of updating an existing record is explicit.

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 indicates 'Use this to update an existing Daily Log records' and mentions that only supplied fields are changed, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives (e.g., create for new records, delete for removal).

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