update_gear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Returns: Updated gear item details' and the action itself, but does not state whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what happens if the gear_id is not found, or any required permissions. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 well-structured with a concise first sentence, then an Args block and Returns line. The Args list duplicates schema information but is clearly formatted and not overly verbose.

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 tool has an output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers the purpose and return type. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., not-found handling, partial updates) but is complete enough for a straightforward CRUD operation.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description's Args block repeats these descriptions without adding deeper semantic context (e.g., partial update behavior, null semantics).

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 'Update an existing gear item' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gear and delete_gear by focusing on modification of existing items.

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 phrase 'existing gear item' implies use on already-created items, providing minimal guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over create_gear or delete_gear, nor any prerequisites.

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