natural_language_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description says 'Update a record', implying a write operation. This is a direct contradiction. No mention of side effects, failure modes, or behavior when WRITE_ENABLED is false.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. The parenthetical prerequisite is efficiently integrated without waste.

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?

Despite a complete schema, the description is minimal and conflicts with annotations, creating confusion about what the tool actually does. It does not describe return values, behavior when WRITE_ENABLED is false, or other side effects, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 100%: both 'table' and 'instruction' are meaningfully described. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Update a record using natural language' – a specific verb (update), resource (record), and method (natural language), distinguishing it from structured update tools like update_record. The prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' adds operational context.

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 comparison to sibling tools such as update_record or natural_language_search. The description implies use for natural language instructions but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is a precondition, not usage guidance.

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