update_data_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the batch update behavior, the requirement for 'id' in batch items, and that a confirmation is returned. However, it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacement, how missing fields are handled, or any side effects on related architecture elements.

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 organized and front-loaded with the purpose, but the first two sentences are redundant ('Update an existing data store' and 'This tool updates one or more existing data stores'). The Args list is necessary but lengthy, making it slightly less concise than it could be.

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 CRUD tool with eight parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: single/batch modes, parameter semantics, and the return type. It does not explain deletion or creation, but those are covered by sibling tools. Sufficient for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds the crucial single/batch mode distinction, including that 'id' is required for single mode (which the schema's 'required' list misses). It also clarifies the structure of 'items' entries, adding value beyond 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 explicitly that it updates an existing data store, with the verb 'update' and resource 'data store'. Distinguishes from siblings like add_data_store, list_data_stores, and delete_data_store by emphasizing modification of existing entities. Also highlights batch support.

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?

Provides clear instructions for when to use single vs. batch mode, including that 'items' overrides individual parameters. Does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for creating new data stores, use add_data_store), but the sibling list makes that implicit.

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