update_marker

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

The description indicates mutation ('update') but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it performs partial or full replacement of properties). No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior. The intent is clear but insufficient for confident invocation.

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 of 5 words, front-loading the core action and resource. It is highly concise with no unnecessary words, meeting minimal needs for a simple tool.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the uniqueness constraint (time_seconds as identifier), nor clarify partial vs full update behavior. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to avoid misuse.

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 complete descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or usage notes. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (existing marker's properties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker (create) and delete_marker (remove). However, it could be more specific about the properties being updated.

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 (e.g., add_marker, delete_marker). No prerequisites or context are mentioned, such as the requirement that the marker must exist and be identified by time_seconds.

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