update_restrictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Update') and shows how to clear restrictions, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, side effects, or what 'Result of the update operation' actually contains.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, available IDs, returns) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Available IDs' section more tightly with the parameter explanation, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the return value contains, error handling, authentication needs, or side effects. The parameter coverage is excellent, but other aspects are incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It provides comprehensive documentation: the parameter name, format ('comma-separated list'), special values ('empty string or omit to clear'), and a detailed mapping of IDs to dietary restrictions across three categories (Protein, Additional, Rasa).

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 specific action ('Update') and resource ('user's dietary restrictions') with the local term 'pantangan' providing additional context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_my_restrictions' (read-only) and 'get_available_restrictions' (reference data).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to set or clear dietary restrictions) and implicitly distinguishes it from read-only siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like bulk operations or other user profile updates.

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