fabricsUpdateFabric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but fails to mention critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), error conditions, or response format. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how the tool behaves.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the purpose and basic usage. Every word serves a clear function without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it explain what constitutes a successful update or the response format. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 11 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'resource ID' (mapping to fabricId) and 'fields to update' (hinting at partial updates), but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances beyond what the schema already specifies.

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') and resource ('a specific fabric'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'fabricsAddFabrics' or 'fabricsDeleteFabric', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 basic usage instructions ('pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fabricsAddFabrics' for creation or 'fabricsDeleteFabric' for deletion. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for updates.

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