update_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update attributes of an existing object' without disclosing merge behavior, permissions, side effects, or error conditions. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences. First states purpose, second gives key usage tip. No wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Adequate for a simple update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. However, it omits return value details and does not clarify behavior relative to sibling tools like set_attribute. Leaves some gaps.

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 has 100% coverage, but description adds valuable semantics by instructing to pass only changed fields, which is not evident from schema alone. The description of attributes as 'JSON object with mutable attributes' aligns with schema.

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?

Description clearly states it updates attributes of an existing object, using specific verb 'update' and noun 'object'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_object, delete_object, and copy_object by implying it modifies an existing object.

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 instruction 'Pass only the fields being changed' provides a usage guideline, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., set_attribute) or when-not-to-use. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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