Update chirp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a partial/merge update or a replacement, what happens to omitted fields (all but id are optional), whether the edit is reversible, or what authorization beyond ownership is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is a coverage problem rather than a conciseness virtue.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and under-half schema description coverage, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: partial-update semantics, field-level effects, and error behavior.

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 only 43% (text, id, isActive, isMature are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With coverage below 50%, the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented fields and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing chirp') plus a scope constraint ('you own'), so it is clearly distinguishable from create_chirp and get_chirp. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the core purpose is 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 phrase 'you own' implies a precondition and thus implied usage (only edit your own chirps), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over create_chirp or update_deal, and no mention of failure modes when the chirp is not yours.

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