pumping_update_pumping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only provided fields are changed, which is a key partial-update behavior. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the record doesn't exist), idempotency, or any side effects. For a simple CRUD update this may be adequate, but more context could be expected.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose and the key behavioral note efficiently, making it highly readable 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 standard update tool with a full parameter schema and an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient. It doesn't mention required fields (though the schema marks ID required) or error cases, but the core usage is clear. Given the presence of the output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description doesn't need to elaborate on return values. It could still mention that the record must exist, but this is a minor gap.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, providing 'New start time' etc. The description adds the crucial semantic that only provided fields are changed, meaning omitted fields remain unchanged. This is not inferable from the schema alone and clarifies the null/default behavior, adding meaningful 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?

The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (pumping record). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from create/delete/list siblings by the verb 'update'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other update tools beyond the resource name, which is already evident from the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing records while create is for new ones, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The only hint is the verb 'update' and the schema's required ID, but no explicit context or exclusion is given.

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