update_vault_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'update' without explaining permission requirements, overwrite semantics, effects on unspecified fields, or error handling. This is entirely insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the simple message it conveys, though it lacks depth (penalized in other dimensions).

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about prerequisites, side effects, and return values. It only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly understand the tool's full behavior and invoke it safely.

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 covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter adequately.

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') and the resource ('vault entry'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vault_entry and delete_vault_entry. It is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that the entry already exists ('existing') but does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where another tool should be used.

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