cyd_shortcut_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds machine-specific and microSD-backed context and clearly implies mutation, but it does not state side effects, whether the update replaces or merges fields, permission requirements, or failure behavior. This is thin for a mutating tool.

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 one sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. The 'Action, L1' fragment is cryptic but compact, and the overall structure is appropriately brief even though it omits important operational detail.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It identifies the resource but omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and update semantics. An agent would need more context to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description does not explain shortcut_id, app_id, or title. It only restates that an update happens without mapping the three required parameters to their meaning. An agent cannot infer what values to supply or how they relate to the shortcut being updated.

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 'Update' and a specific resource, 'existing microSD-backed Home shortcut.' The word 'existing' plus the verb distinguishes it from create/delete siblings, even though those alternatives are not named. The 'Action, L1' prefix is cryptic but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cyd_shortcut_create, cyd_shortcut_delete, or cyd_shortcuts_list. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit conditions for when an update is appropriate. The only implied signal is that the shortcut must already exist.

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