update_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the verified_at timestamp is automatically refreshed, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or requires specific permissions.

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. The first directly states the action and target, the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 three parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and one behavioral note. It lacks details on error handling, validation, or side effects, making it only moderately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'id' parameter (entry types) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The 'updates' parameter is explained in the schema as well.

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 that the tool updates existing decisions, pipelines, or constraints by ID, specifying the resource types and action. It adds value by mentioning automatic timestamp refresh, distinguishing it from read-only tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deprecate_entry or prune_stale. The description implies its use for general updates but does not explicitly state limitations or when to choose a different tool.

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