hash_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function but fails to mention statefulness, side effects, or required prior initialization. The 'incremental' nature is implied but not explained.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the structure is minimal and could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 parameters with no description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial context about incremental behavior, required prior state, and how updates accumulate. The sibling tools suggest a broader hashing workflow that is not addressed.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'algorithm', 'data_parts', or 'hex' beyond their schema types. This is a significant gap.

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 computes hash incrementally with multiple updates, distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute a single hash in one go. The verb 'compute' and resource 'hash incrementally' are specific. However, it could be more precise about the incremental update context.

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 like hash_new or hash_final. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior hash object) or any exclusion criteria.

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