Update RFI Reply

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) indicate a non-read-only, possibly mutating operation. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object. This provides some context beyond annotations, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error handling. With annotations covering basic safety, a score of 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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, there is minor redundancy: 'Updates a specified RFI reply' and later 'Updates the specified RFI records' (inconsistent noun 'records' vs 'replies'). Still, it avoids unnecessary words and is efficiently structured.

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 that there is no output schema and 4 parameters, the description explains the update behavior (partial update) and required parameters. It mentions return on success but does not cover error handling, field validation, or the exact return format. It is adequate for basic usage but lacks detail for a fully informed agent, hence a score of 3.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all 4 parameters. The description repeats that project_id, rfi_id, and id are required but adds no additional meaning about the 'official' parameter beyond what the schema provides ('official Status'). No parameter details are elaborated beyond schema descriptions, so score remains at baseline 3.

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 'Updates a specified RFI reply' and explains that only supplied fields are changed, returning the modified object. It distinguishes the update action from create or show tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_rfi' or 'create_rfi_reply', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 RFI replies and lists required parameters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or show), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. Usage is implied but not fully specified.

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