update_directory_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the PATCH method and the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are modified'). This is adequate for a simple update tool, though it omits details like idempotency or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and key behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous information.

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 low complexity, presence of an output schema, and adequate parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects. It could be slightly more explicit about the use of id_instance, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% with descriptive names and descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that provided fields are updated, which is essential semantic context for using the optional parameters.

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 action: 'Partially update a directory line', including the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_directory_line by specifying that only provided fields are modified, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (for partial updates) versus a full replace, but does not explicitly mention sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It gives clear context but lacks exclusionary instructions.

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