update_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add behavioral context: patch semantics, immutable ID preservation, and the active-only constraint. But it omits key behavioral details such as expected_revision optimistic concurrency, side effects, permission requirements, and response behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and primary constraint are front-loaded, and the archived-entry alternative is stated efficiently.

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?

The output schema presumably covers return values, and the EntryPatch definition covers the partial-update model. Still, the tool has an expected_revision parameter that is left unexplained, and no annotations exist to cover safety or concurrency context, so the description is not fully complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it mentions none of entry_id, patch, or expected_revision. The embedded EntryPatch schema description explains patch fields, but the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Patch'), a resource ('entry'), and a scope ('active'), and adds that the ID is immutable. This clearly differentiates update_entry from creation, deletion, and lifecycle-specific siblings like retract_entry or unpublish_entry.

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?

Explicitly gives an alternative for archived entries ('republish_entry first'), which is actionable when-to-use guidance. However, it does not distinguish update_entry from correct_entry, retract_entry, or unpublish_entry, so the routing guidance is not exhaustive.

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