jaydb_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important CAS behavior, but it does not describe side effects such as overwriting, conflict error responses, or what the tool returns. The schema partially compensates by describing ifMatch and createOnly behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and the distinctive CAS behavior. There is no redundant or filler 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?

The required parameters are clear and the schema covers all fields, so an agent can invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values, version/ETag responses, or failure semantics, the description is not fully complete for confident use in all scenarios.

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 schema fully documents key, data, ifMatch, namespace, and createOnly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the complete 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 states a specific action, 'Create or update', on a specific resource, 'a document', and includes the key mechanism 'optimistic concurrency control (CAS)'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/delete/health 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?

The usage is implied by the verb: use when creating or updating a document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to get/delete/list/health, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and siblings.

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