update_concept

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation (update) and side effects (re-embed, index update). However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or behavior if concept_id is invalid. Enough for basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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 plus a two-line paragraph. No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

An output schema exists (context signal), so return value details may be omitted. However, the description does not mention what the tool returns or confirm success/failure. The behavioral details are adequate for a mutation tool, but lacking error or result information.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. Parameter names (title, content, type, tags) are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'type' and 'tags' lack clarity on constraints or allowed values. The partial update hint adds some value, but insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 'Update an existing concept in the bundle', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_concept and fetch_concepts, though the concept of a 'concept' is assumed.

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 explicitly mentions that only provided fields are applied, indicating a partial update behavior. It also notes side effects like re-embedding and vector index update. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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