Amend an experience

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the critical partial-update behavior—only supplied fields are changed—which goes beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint convey. It does not mention return behavior or failure modes, but those are not essential given the annotations.

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 deliver the core behavior, scope, and an illustrative example with no filler. The critical constraint 'Only supplied fields change' is placed prominently at the end of the description, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 patch operation with a rich nested schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what to patch, that it is an existing record, and that the update is partial. With no output schema, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The only notable gap is lack of explicit sibling routing, but that is more a usage-guidelines concern.

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 roughly 50%: the patch object has 'Fields to replace', but id has no description. The tool description reinforces the partial-replacement meaning and gives a few examples, but it does not enumerate or explain all patch subfields. Overall the schema names and enums are reasonably self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 ('Patch') and resource ('fields of an existing record'), immediately distinguishing it from create/read/delete operations. The parenthetical examples ('better fix, extra avoid items, corrected context') clarify the kind of amendments intended, and 'Only supplied fields change' pins down the exact scope.

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 word 'existing' implies this is for updates rather than new records, and 'only supplied fields change' clarifies partial overrides. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings like record, reinforce, or forget, and no alternative conditions are stated.

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