update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals the key behavioral trait: partial updates that preserve the rest of the file byte-for-byte. This goes beyond the schema and reduces ambiguity about destructive overwriting, though it does not discuss failure cases or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, especially the 'byte-for-byte' preservation detail.

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 description covers the fundamental update behavior and benefits from an output schema, so return values are likely handled. However, with zero parameter documentation and no explicit guidance on when to use update versus write, the tool definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only gives an id example ('dec-001') and speaks generally about 'fields you pass', but does not clarify body, tags, title, or status beyond their names. The schema itself provides no descriptions, leaving the agent with limited semantic grounding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing entry by id'. It also clarifies that this is a partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like write by establishing an update-in-place semantic.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: updating an existing entry by id, with only the provided fields changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'existing entry' and 'preserved byte-for-byte' language makes the intended use case reasonably clear.

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