fm_update_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replace, what happens to fields omitted from fieldData, whether it requires write permission, or whether it is reversible. For an unannotated mutation tool with a nested object parameter, this is a substantial gap. The single word 'Update' only implies mutation, which the name already conveyed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and resource come first. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's four required parameters.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with a nested object (fieldData), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Although the schema covers parameter names and types, nothing explains update semantics, merge behavior, permissions, or failure modes, which an agent invoking a write operation needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (database, layout, recordId, fieldData) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about fieldData's partial-update semantics or the significance of recordId, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('existing record'), so an agent can distinguish it from fm_create_record and fm_delete_record by the verb alone. It stops short of differentiating from siblings by scope or behavior, and gives no hint of what 'existing' requires beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus fm_create_record, fm_query_records, or fm_run_script. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when an update is the right call. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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