upservice_update_directory_record

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that only explicitly passed fields are sent and that explicit null clears fields. Annotations already indicate idempotency, and the description reinforces safe mutation behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, one for behavior, and structured Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words, well-organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the partial update behavior, field handling, and return type. It lacks error cases or permissions, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions record_id and extra_fields, but does not detail other parameters beyond what the schema provides. The partial update behavior is explained, but more explicit parameter semantics would improve the score.

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 'Partially update a directory record's fields,' specifying the action (update), resource (directory record), and partial nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upservice_create_directory_record and upservice_delete_directory_record.

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 explains partial update semantics and field handling (omitted vs. null), providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, which would raise the score to 5.

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