bib: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 clearly reveals the mutating nature of the operation, the partial-update semantics, and the side effect of creating a .bak backup before writing. It does not discuss validation failures or return values, but the critical behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the action, describe partial-update behavior, and flag the backup side effect. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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 write operation with full schema coverage, the description plus schema provides enough information to call the tool correctly: required file, id, fields, and the behavior of the update. No output schema exists, so return-value details are missing, but that is a minor gap for this kind of mutation tool.

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 schema already documents id, file, style, and fields. The description reinforces the meaning of the fields parameter by emphasizing that only specified fields change, but it adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise operation — 'Update fields of an existing bibliography entry' — with a clear verb, target resource, and scope. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from bib:add, and 'fields of' distinguishes it from bib:delete or bib:get.

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 gives clear context: it is for modifying an existing entry, not creating or deleting one. The sentence 'Only the specified fields are changed; all other fields remain untouched' clarifies that this is a selective update rather than a full replacement. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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