Data: update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known; the description goes further by disclosing partial-update semantics (only named fields change), the return value (updated record), automatic JSON-string coercion for jsonb fields, and the side effect that EntityUpdated workflows fire. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the alternative in a compact sequence of short sentences. The trailing confirmation warning is mildly redundant with destructiveHint but still earns its place as actionable guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned, and it covers partial-update semantics, the jsonb coercion edge case, side effects, and the create alternative. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `data`: it clarifies that only named fields are touched and that objects/arrays for jsonb fields are stringified automatically, which is not visible in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a record') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling 'data_create' for the create case. An agent can distinguish this from data_create/data_delete without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the create case to `data_create` and adds a caution to confirm with the user before running, which is meaningful usage guidance for a destructive write. It stops short of contrasting with data_delete or data_get, which are the other obvious alternatives in this sibling set.

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