update_object_fields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the write/idempotent profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: scalar-only scope and the rationale that wholesale list replacement silently drops references. It stops short of noting permission needs or error behavior for invalid field names.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the constraint, its rationale, and the alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

With no output schema and a deliberately generic three-parameter signature, the definition covers what it does, its key restriction, and where to go instead. Missing only edge details such as failure modes on unknown field names or required permissions, which are minor for this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by constraining the otherwise open 'fields' object to scalar values and giving concrete examples (name on a place, text on a note), clarifying semantics the schema alone leaves ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Set scalar fields on any object', plus the framing 'escape hatch for places, notes, repositories'. It also distinguishes itself from the structural-list siblings by name, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly says what is not settable (structural lists) and routes those cases to cite_object, detach_object, tag_object and attach_media. It does not, however, state when to prefer the typed siblings (update_place, update_person, update_source) over this generic escape hatch, so the when-to-use side is only partly covered.

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