update_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the partial update semantics via 'Dictionary of {column: new_value} updates' and mentions the return format (JSON with update status). However, it omits error behavior, permissions, and whether updates are applied atomically.

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-structured with a one-line summary, Args list, Returns note, and example. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable.

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 moderate complexity tool (3 params, nested object), the description covers parameters, return type, and a full example. It lacks when-to-use guidance and error handling, but is otherwise complete enough for a basic update operation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining each parameter in the Args block, including the nested structure of 'updates'. The example provides concrete usage, making parameter meaning clear.

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 'Update fields in an existing record' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like insert_records (create) and get_record (read). The example further makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage by showing required args and an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_records vs update_record). No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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