Update record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key partial-update behavior ('Only the provided fields change'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the record doesn't exist, leaving some gaps for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple update tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does and the scope of updates (only provided fields). It could mention return values or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reinforcing the 'fields' parameter as the 'map of the columns to change,' but it does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update fields on an existing Airtable record.' The verb 'update' is specific, and the resource 'existing Airtable record' is precise. It distinguishes from siblings like create_record, get_record, list_records, and search_records by focusing on modifying an existing record rather than creating, reading, listing, or searching.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to change fields on an existing record) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, though the sibling list makes the context clear.

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