update_ci

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Update a CMDB configuration item.' It does not explain whether the update merges or replaces existing attributes, whether class_name changes the table, what permissions are required, or what happens if the sys_id is invalid. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the action. This is efficient and appropriately sized, earning a 5.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential contextual details for a mutation tool. It does not clarify whether the update is a partial update or full replacement, how to structure the 'data' object, or how class_name affects behavior. The presence of sibling tools like update_record also creates ambiguity that is not resolved, making the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (data, sys_id, class_name), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already explains each parameter clearly enough. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage and concise parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('CMDB configuration item'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_record, which might also update CI records if given the right table parameter, so it falls short of a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_record or create_ci. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when a CI must exist, or when to choose this tool over the generic update_record, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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