Update Near Miss

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics (only changed fields), payload wrapping (fields nested under near_miss), default project_id behavior, return value, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: partial update, payload handling, defaults, id resolution, return, error handling, and endpoint reference. No fluff or repetition.

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 (11 parameters, PATCH semantics, error cases) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to invoke, what to send, what to expect, and how to handle failures. It also references the API section and endpoint, making it self-contained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested in the payload automatically, omitted fields retain current values, project_id falls back to a config value, and id must reference an existing record. This clarifies how to use the parameters beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Near Miss' attributes.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_near_miss or destroy_near_miss by focusing on updating existing records, and it reinforces the scope with the endpoint and API section.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after listing to get a valid id) and implies it is for updating existing records. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for creation or deletion, but the context is strong.

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