Update Entry

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: it describes a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and a destructive-capable update (destructiveHint=true). It adds a useful behavioral detail by stating 'partially update,' indicating that unspecified fields remain unchanged, which goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not disclose the role of the 'confirm' parameter or any destructive implications beyond the annotation, so it adds limited additional 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though arguably too brief for the schema complexity.

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's complexity—nested 'spec' object, a 'confirm' parameter, and destructive annotations—the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'confirm' does, how partial updates handle nulls, or what the return value is (no output schema). Agents cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional context, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps 'text' to title/content, 'tags' to tag_ids, and 'pin state' to pinned, but it does not explain the 'spec' nested structure or the 'confirm' parameter at all. The description gives a high-level overview of updatable fields but leaves critical parameters (especially confirm) undefined, which is a significant gap.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Partially update entry text, tags, or pin state.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (entry), and scope (text, tags, pin state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bundled_set_entry_state (which updates state) or bundled_delete_entry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using bundled_set_entry_state for state changes or bundled_create_entry for creation. The phrase 'Partially update' implicitly suggests it is for partial modifications, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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