moa_tip_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two crucial behaviors: atomicity and partial update semantics (omitted fields remain, nullable fields clear when null). This goes beyond a generic 'update' and helps the agent avoid data loss. However, it omits return values, error handling, and permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core behavior in a concise, well-structured manner.

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 tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too brief. It fails to mention return values, error behavior, required vs optional fields, or the meaning of the many parameters. The partial-update rule is helpful, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without additional schema inspection.

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 description coverage is 7%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides a general rule about omitted/nullable fields that applies to all parameters, which adds meaning beyond the schema. Yet it does not explain the purpose or semantics of individual parameters like tags, status, or documentRefs, which is a significant gap for a 15-parameter tool.

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') and resource ('a Tip'), which satisfies the basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like moa_tip_archive or moa_tip_create, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 the intended use case: updating an existing tip with partial update semantics. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention exclusions. The atomic/partial-update rule gives contextual guidance but no direct comparison to siblings.

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