update_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies an informational or tutorial role ('understand how to update'), but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, or has side effects. The ambiguity fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 sentence that is concise but under-specified, as it fails to clearly state the tool's function. While efficient, it lacks front-loaded clarity, making it less helpful for quick comprehension. It could be more structured to directly convey purpose without ambiguity.

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 the tool's complexity (implied by its vague purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how it aids in 'understanding,' leaving gaps despite the output schema. For a tool with no annotations and unclear behavior, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, aligning with the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 the tool is for 'understanding how to update dataset examples in LangSmith,' which is vague about the actual action performed. It suggests a meta-purpose (learning how to update) rather than executing an update operation, creating ambiguity. This differs from clear sibling tools like 'create_dataset' or 'read_example' that specify direct actions.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'Call this tool when you need to understand how to update dataset examples,' but it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_examples' or 'read_example.' This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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