update_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior—partial updates that leave unspecified fields unchanged—but it does not mention failure modes, return values, or any side effects. This is sufficient for a basic CRUD operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by conveying the essential partial-update semantics.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves notable gaps: no mention of error behavior, return values, or that status can be updated directly. For a mutation tool with five parameters, this level of detail is insufficient.

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?

Only 40% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level guidance. The phrase 'provided fields' alludes to the data object but does not clarify other parameters like status, collection_id, or record_id. The description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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 ('update') and resource ('record'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_record, delete_record, and get_record. The phrase 'partial update, only provided fields are changed' adds precision about the operation's 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 description conveys that this tool is for modifying existing records with granular control, implying use when only specific fields need changing rather than a full replacement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of strong guidance.

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