updateAirtableRecord

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It offers no information about what happens if the record does not exist, whether it performs a partial or full update, required permissions, or the return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to conveying the core action.

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 simple update tool, the description and schema together provide the essential information to invoke the tool correctly. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations, plus the lack of any behavioral details (e.g., partial update semantics, error handling), leaves some gaps. It is minimally viable but not rich in context.

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% and all parameters are well-documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'specified fields' which the schema already explains with an example. Baseline 3 applies because the schema covers parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing record in the given table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like createAirtableRecord (create vs update) and listAirtableRecords (list vs update). It precisely conveys the tool's function.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'Updates ... existing record' suggests use when modifying an existing record, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Sibling tools like createAirtableRecord are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate choice.

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