update_keyword

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., what happens if id is missing, partial update behavior, or auth requirements). It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words or details. It is front-loaded with the action and object.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It lacks optional details like error handling (e.g., id not found) or whether other fields exist, but it is sufficient for basic usage given the input schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It implies the 'id' parameter identifies the record and 'name' is the field to update, but does not explain syntax, constraints (e.g., required, uniqueness), or effects of omitting name. It provides basic but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 a keyword record by ID', specifying the verb (update), resource (keyword record), and method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_keyword, get_keyword, delete_keyword.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_keyword for new records, or conditions under which update is appropriate). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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