write_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the upsert behavior ('create or update'), the safety requirement ('confirm: Must be True to execute'), and the read-only mode disabling. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., field overwrite behavior) or error handling, which would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and structured as a docstring with Args and Returns. While not overly verbose, it includes an example and parameter details. It could be slightly more concise by removing the example if schema already covers structure, but overall it's well-organized.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description only needs to summarize return values ('Status of the write operation'). It covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, safety confirm, and read-only mode. Missing details like error conditions or default field handling do not significantly detract from completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add full meaning. The Args section explains each parameter: file_name, record_id, fields (with structure details: single values, lists, nested lists), and confirm (with safety condition). An example is provided, significantly aiding understanding.

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 'Write or update a record in a Universe file,' specifying the verb (write/update) and resource (record in a Universe file). This differentiates it from sibling tools like read_record, delete_record, or execute_query.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for create/update operations but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for reading or deleting records). The mention of 'Disabled in read-only mode' provides a constraint but no comparison to siblings.

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