Update Resource

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned. This adds some behavioral context, but does not disclose side effects or authorization needs. With annotations covering basics, a 3 is appropriate.

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, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Some redundancy exists (e.g., both 'Update the specified Resource.' and 'Use this to update...'), but overall it is well-structured and not 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?

The description mentions the return object on success, which is helpful since there is no output schema. It covers the purpose, basic usage, and required parameters. For a straightforward update tool, this is mostly complete, though a bit more context on the 'resource object' would be beneficial.

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%, and the description simply lists the required parameters without adding detail beyond the schema. The 'resource' parameter is described as 'resource object' but lacks specifics on its structure. No significant added value over 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 the action (update) and the resource (Schedule Legacy records). It provides the API endpoint, which adds specificity. However, it could be more distinct from sibling update tools by explicitly mentioning the resource type, but it's sufficient.

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 when to use (update an existing Schedule Legacy record) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names. Usage is inferred from context, not explicitly guided.

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