update_catalog_item

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds the prerequisite that WRITE_ENABLED=true is required, which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't disclose behavior when the flag is false or describe edge cases like non-existent items, so it provides limited additional transparency beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the parenthetical requirement is concise. It earns a top score for conciseness.

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 two fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations provide adequate context. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, and the schema covers the parameters. It doesn't explicitly explain partial update semantics, but the nested 'fields' object implies it. Overall, it's reasonably complete for its complexity.

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% with both 'sys_id' and 'fields' described. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing catalog item' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a modification operation. It distinguishes from create_catalog_item and get_catalog_item by virtue of the 'update' verb, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the generic update_record tool, so it's not a 5.

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 existing catalog items that need modification, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_catalog_item or update_record. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, making the guidance only implied rather than explicit.

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