ctverify:update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly conveys mutation, independent field updating, status progression, and upsert-like creation for missing IDs. It leaves some edge behavior unspecified, such as what happens when an ID is missing without a cite or whether the batch is atomic, but it is substantially transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: per-entry independence, claim semantics, status lifecycle, and the upsert condition. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation-relevant details: what each meaningful field does, how verification status progresses, and when a new entry is created. It does not specify behavior for entries whose IDs are missing and that lack a cite, nor batch atomicity, but these are not strictly necessary for calling the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameter types and requirements. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining what claim records, how status progresses through the verification states, and when the cite parameter enables new-entry creation. This goes beyond the field descriptions in 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 a specific action and resource: batch update citation verification entries. It also explains the per-entry update capability and conditional creation of new entries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool ctverify:bulk-update, which sounds similarly batch-oriented.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ctverify:bulk-update, ctverify:get, or bib:update. The description gives an internal conditional (new entry creation when an ID does not exist and cite is provided), but this is not tool-selection guidance.

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