aoci_update_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses substantial detail: validation happens before writes, Code/Database/Baseline/Binding are each written at most once, R relations are persisted literally without replanning, and repair_required returns deterministic findings with named fields. It still does not describe permissions/auth, concurrency behavior, or the normal success response shape.

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 core action is front-loaded, and most sentences contain domain-specific constraints rather than filler. However, the description is a long, dense paragraph with repeated warnings and nested clauses, making it harder to scan than necessary for an agent.

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 complex write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and eight parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains the pipeline, identity preservation, validation, repair behavior, and continuation through Maintain. It is less complete on normal response shape and on the unexplained max_entries reference.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: code_batch_id must equal code_plan.batch_id and candidate batch_id, candidate_id and source_sha256 must be preserved exactly, and entries must be the complete candidate set. One issue is that max_entries is discussed even though it is not present in the input 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?

The description opens with a specific write action: submit one complete machine-issued Entry batch through the existing validation and write pipeline. It also distinguishes this tool from aoci_maintain by tying submission to Maintain output and continuation. The purpose is clear but buried under dense internal jargon like 'Impact, projected validation, Diff, CAS, AtomicWrite, Baseline/Database Binding, Receipt, Ledger, and Recovery pipeline.'

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?

It gives explicit operational context: use code_batch_id from no-argument aoci_maintain, call Maintain again when remaining is nonzero, and resubmit the same complete batch after repair_required. It also states when not to use it for partial submissions and notes compatibility single-object/Legacy modes. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to aoci_remove_entry or other siblings for alternative operations.

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