update_user_toil

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' indicating mutation, but fails to disclose whether the operation is idempotent, partial vs full replacement, or error handling if the entry does not exist. The range hint suggests validation but not behavior.

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?

A single sentence, minimal verbosity. The range constraint is a useful addition. However, the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail; still, it earns its place as efficient rather than wordy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., entry must exist), error scenarios, and effect on related data (e.g., allowance updates). Complements the schema poorly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific details except an implied range for amount. The other four parameters (user_id, year, toil_id, description) are completely undefined in the description, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 'Update an existing TOIL entry', specifying the verb and resource. It also adds a numeric range constraint (-5000 to 5000) that hints at amount limits. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like add_user_toil or delete_user_toil.

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 provides only the amount range, implying a constraint but not when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add vs update vs delete). No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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