updateDataType

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Writes live data' and describing the return value format: '{ status: "success", message: {...updatedRecord} }'. The idempotentHint annotation is consistent with the phrase 'Fields omitted are untouched.' No contradictions are present. The description could mention more about the _clear_fields parameter, but that is covered in the schema.

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 yet informative, using bullet points and a clear structure. The main action is front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds value, though the enumeration of enums could be slightly trimmed without loss. Overall, it is efficient and 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 the rich schema (100% coverage) and useful annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, required field, behavior ('Fields omitted are untouched'), return format, and sibling tools. Minor omission: no mention of potential errors or limitations, but for a partial update tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including enums and the _clear_fields parameter. The description does not add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates some enum values and the 'Fields omitted are untouched' behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a data type - Update an existing datatype record by ID.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (data type). The distinction from siblings is explicit via the 'See also' section, which lists createDataType and deleteDataType as alternatives.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use when: renaming a data type.' It also lists required field (data_id) and important behavior ('Fields omitted are untouched'). The enums are explained, and the 'See also' section gives alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other update tools, which slightly reduces the score.

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