chaprola_update_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so unusually well by explaining the two execution paths: in-place update versus marking old record ignored and appending to a merge file. Missing details like error handling and return values prevent a higher score.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral complexity well. It leaves some gaps—such as what happens when no record matches, how sort-key is defined, and what the tool returns—but overall it is sufficiently complete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around the 'where' clause and the effect of sort-key changes on the 'set' parameter, but it does not substantially enhance individual parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Update fields'), the target resource ('a single record'), and the matching mechanism ('where clause'). It naturally distinguishes itself from insert/delete siblings by focusing on updating an existing record.

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 establishes clear context: use this when updating a single existing record identified by a where clause. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary cases, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection among CRUD siblings.

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