feedings_update_feeding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields are changed' – a partial-update semantics that is important for an agent to know. However, it does not disclose what happens when a field is set to null (whether that clears the field or is ignored), nor does it mention any validation, side effects, or return behavior. The partial-update note is valuable but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target; the second adds the most important behavioral nuance. Every word 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?

For a simple update tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the ambiguity around null values: since all optional fields default to null, an agent cannot tell whether passing null clears a field or means 'do not change'. This is a meaningful completeness gap for an update 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the crucial semantic that only provided fields are changed, which clarifies how the optional parameters behave. It does not add detail about null semantics or format constraints beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing feeding record'), and the schema confirms the target is identified by feeding_id. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from feedings_create_feeding or feedings_delete_feeding, but the verb 'update' plus the resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to modify an existing feeding record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like feedings_create_feeding for new records or feedings_delete_feeding for removal. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right scenario, but no explicit guidance is given.

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