measurements_update_temperature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Only provided fields are changed,' which is important partial-update semantics. However, it does not mention what happens if the record is not found, whether the update is irreversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and immediately states the key semantic (partial update). 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 CRUD update, the description is minimal but mostly adequate. It does not cover error cases (e.g., non-existent ID) or mention the return value, but an output schema is present. Given no annotations and a simple operation, a bit more context (like 'returns the updated record') would make it complete.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are changed, which is not explicit in the schema (the schema shows 'New time', etc., but does not state the omission behavior). This helps the agent understand that null means 'do not update'.

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 action: 'Update an existing temperature record.' It identifies the resource and the verb, distinguishing it from create/delete/list tools. It does not explicitly mention the measurements domain, but the tool name carries that context.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this vs. other update tools (e.g., for weight, height). There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must rely on the name to infer the intended use.

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