update_records

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the return value is True on success, which is basic. No additional behavioral context (e.g., atomicity, rollback, irreversibility) is provided beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with three sentences and an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose, though the structured section repeats information already implied by the schema.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, nested object, destructive hint), the description adequately covers parameters and return value, but lacks error handling details, examples, or clarification on valid ID requirements. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains all three parameters: model (with example), ids (list of integers), and values (dict). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema types, though it could be more precise about value constraints (e.g., valid field names).

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 existing records') and the resource ('an Odoo model'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_record, delete_records, and read_record.

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 (e.g., search_records to find IDs first), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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