update_marker

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description simply says 'update', which implies mutation, but provides no additional behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the marker doesn't exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded with a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, updated marker object) or any prerequisites (e.g., marker must exist). The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about expected behavior.

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 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not add any extra semantic information about parameters, such as constraints or formatting. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool updates properties of an existing marker. Among siblings, tools like add_marker, delete_marker, list_markers exist, so this distinguishes update from other actions. However, it could be more specific about which properties are updated, though the input schema covers them.

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. For example, it does not say 'use this to change an existing marker, not to create a new one (use add_marker)'. The absence of contextual cues makes it harder for the agent to select correctly.

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