whodb_platform_update_ontology_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations — the preview/confirmation-token flow and the associated confirm-gating rule. It still omits what gets destroyed or how partial updates behave.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then the confirm-flow constraint; each sentence carries useful content. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the value structure, the preview/confirm lifecycle, and workspace targeting, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around error/permission behavior and partial-update semantics.

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, but the description elevates it by clarifying that 'values' must carry both matcher values and replacement values and that update_columns names the properties to update — a non-obvious structure the raw schema ('Record values keyed by ontology property') does not convey.

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 precise verb+resource ('Update one hosted ontology row'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the add_ontology_record and delete_ontology_record siblings by mutation type. An agent can identify it without reading the schema.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: the default mode emits a confirmation token and whodb_platform_confirm must not be called until the user approves the preview. It also explains per-call workspace targeting, but does not state prerequisites (existing entity, permissions) or contrast against other update paths.

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