Update record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's one contribution beyond that is the PATCH-style partial-update semantics, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about how invalid or unknown fields are handled, permission requirements, or error 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the partial-update constraint in parentheses. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 polymorphic mutation tool with a free-form nested 'data' object, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description leaves out valid-field discovery, required fields, and failure modes. An agent cannot safely call it without opening every other schema.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate and does not: it never explains the 'resource' enum, the role of 'id', or the shape of 'data'. The pointer to valid fields lives in the schema ('see describe'), not the description.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('Partially update a Snipe-IT record') plus the key semantic that only given fields change. It does not differentiate from siblings like create/restore beyond the obvious verb, and never mentions that 'record' spans 18 resource types.

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 on when to use this versus create, restore, or checkout/checkin, and no prerequisite telling the agent to call describe to learn valid field names. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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