update_json

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It successfully calls out the necessary security prerequisite ('Requires owner token') and the technical flexibility of the payload format, which is crucial behavioral context for the agent.

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, front-loading the primary function first and then following with the critical constraint and input flexibility. There is zero wasted language.

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 that there are no output schemas or annotations, the description is robust enough to handle the key operational complexities: authentication requirements (owner token) and input data flexibility (various JSON formats).

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?

Although the schema covers the parameters, the description explicitly explains the functional meaning of the 'json' input: that it accepts three distinct types (object, array, or string), making the polymorphic input highly understandable to the agent.

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 function as updating an 'existing BrewPage JSON document.' It is specific about the resource being targeted (BrewPage JSON) but does not explicitly compare itself against other JSON siblings (e.g., update_html).

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, stating it updates an existing document. However, it offers no guidance on specific scenarios where this tool should be preferred over alternatives like 'get_json' followed by a 'publish_json' sequence.

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