update-record

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which the description's 'Update' action aligns with (no contradiction). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it mentions 'any supported type' but doesn't detail what happens on partial updates, error conditions, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, it meets baseline expectations without enriching understanding.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and annotations, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally complete for a mutation tool. However, with no output schema and multiple parameters, it lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. It's adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder agent effectiveness in complex 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain 'record_data' structure, 'resource_type' implications, or 'return_details' effects. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 ('existing record of any supported type'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-record' (new vs existing) and 'delete-record' (update vs remove). However, it doesn't specify what 'update' entails operationally beyond the general concept.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing record ID), compare to similar tools like 'update-list-entry' or 'batch-operations', or indicate scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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