update_content_type

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It reveals the merge behavior (partial update), which is valuable. However, it lacks information on side effects (e.g., what happens if content type is published), error handling, or required permissions, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as return values, error cases, required permissions, and how the merge handles conflicts. The low schema coverage further exacerbates this gap.

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 only 29% (two parameters have descriptions). The description does not compensate by explaining parameters like name, fields, or description. It merely mentions 'fields and properties' generically, so it adds little semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Update an existing content type' and implies it modifies rather than creates or deletes, distinguishing it from siblings like create_content_type and delete_content_type. However, it could be more specific about the context (Contentful) and the exact resource.

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 provides a usage hint by explaining that the handler merges updates, so users only need to include changed fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create for new, delete for removal), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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