parse_update_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update behavior ('Solo actualiza los campos especificados'), which is useful, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return values. This provides minimal but non-trivial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a nested parameter structure and no output schema, so the description carries significant weight. It covers the core purpose and partial update behavior, but lacks the inputSchema nesting detail and any mention of response or error conditions, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names className, objectId, and data, and notes data is an object with fields to modify, but it fails to mention the top-level 'inputSchema' wrapper required by the schema. This mismatch could confuse an agent about the expected parameter structure.

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 uses a specific verb 'Actualiza' and identifies the resource as 'campos de un objeto existente en Parse Server', which clearly distinguishes it from create/delete tools. It also adds the scope 'Solo actualiza los campos especificados', making the purpose 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?

It lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parse_increment_field or parse_add_to_array. There is no explicit 'when/when-not' or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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