update_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It discloses that the update is partial (PATCH), callId is immutable, and the annotationId must come from list_annotations_for_call. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover idempotency or permissions.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and specific fields, then provides examples and sourcing instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context well. It is sufficient for a simple partial update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Missing explicit error handling or permissions, but not critical for basic usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining how to source annotationId and reaffirming that omitted fields retain current values. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool performs a partial update on an annotation's annotationText, label, or qualityScore, using the PATCH method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_annotation or delete_annotation by specifying 'update' and giving examples like 'fixing a label or re-scoring quality'.

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 usage context by instructing to obtain annotationId from list_annotations_for_call and noting that callId is immutable. It gives examples of when to use the tool (fixing label, rescoring quality). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools (e.g., delete_annotation) beyond the sibling list.

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