update_attribute

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is in-place and preserves citations, notes and privacy, which tells the agent that removal is non-cascading. It does not, however, warn about what the destructiveHint actually destroys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cardinality constraint ('ONE') and the preservation guarantee are both packed into the opening clause.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully documented schema covers the essentials: target selection, matching ambiguity, and non-cascading removal. The only gap is that return/failure behavior (e.g. the 'changes nothing and lists them' outcome on ambiguous match) lives only in the schema.

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%, so all six parameters including the tricky 'match' disambiguation rule are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the 'ONE attribute' scoping, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb pair (set/remove) on a specific resource (one attribute) with an explicit in-place constraint, which distinguishes it from add_attribute and the bulk update_* siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'in place, keeping its citations, notes and privacy' hints this is the edit-existing path rather than delete-and-re-add, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus add_attribute or update_object_fields.

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