Update Bike Rows

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

The description discloses that HTML updates recreate the row, changing the row ID while preserving children, and recommends fetching the new ID via bike_get_document_outline. This adds value beyond annotations. However, the idempotentHint annotation is contradicted by the row ID change behavior on HTML updates.

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 well-organized into Args, Returns, Examples, and Errors sections. The first sentence states the core purpose. Examples are concise and illustrative, with no wasted words.

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 single parameter (updates) with nested structure, the description thoroughly covers its inner fields, return value (confirmation message), and error cases. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately provides the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds examples showing how each field is used, clarifies the meaning of html and type values, and explains constraints like the need for at least one of name or type per row.

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 updates one or more rows' text content and/or type. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, delete, query) through its action verb and examples showing modification of existing rows.

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?

Examples demonstrate various use cases (single update, batch to task, mixed updates, HTML). Error messages provide context for when the tool cannot be used. However, no explicit comparison to alternatives like bike_create_rows for when to create vs update.

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