Update Waste Log

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, aligning with annotations. However, openWorldHint=true suggests unknown side effects, which are not addressed.

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 includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Update single Waste Log' and 'Use this to update an existing Daily Log records') and has a link that may not be immediately useful. It is adequate but not streamlined.

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 covers the basic behavior and required parameters, but does not explain response format, error handling, or edge cases. Given no output schema, more detail on response and errors would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates required parameters and points to a guide for attachments, but adds little beyond the schema, such as the structure of the 'waste_log' object.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'Waste Log', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_waste_log' and 'delete_waste_log'. It specifies that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, providing a precise purpose.

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 mentions partial updates and links to an attachment guide, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., bulk updates, create/delete) or provide when-not-to-use conditions. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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