superset_annotation_layer_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('Pass only the fields to change') but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or how null values affect fields. The output schema's existence reduces the need to describe return values.

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 and front-loaded with 'Update an annotation layer.' The Args list is structured and directly maps to the schema. No wasted words.

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 update tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and partial-update behavior. It could improve by explicitly contrasting with annotation_layer_create or explaining error scenarios, but it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It defines each parameter: annotation_layer_id as the layer ID, name as the new name, and descr as the new description. It also clarifies that only fields to change need to be passed. It lacks details on null semantics or constraints, but covers the essentials.

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 says 'Update an annotation layer' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like annotation_layer_create, annotation_layer_get, and annotation_layer_delete by focusing on updating an existing layer.

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 'Pass only the fields to change' implies partial-update semantics and provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of create/delete or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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