cmmn-update_sentry

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that changing guards_item or source_ref causes automatic deletion and recreation of graph edges, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information; every phrase adds value.

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?

The description explains the core function and important side effects, but it does not cover return values (no output schema), possible errors, or value constraints for parameters like standard_event (though schema implies freeform). Given moderate complexity, it is mostly complete but has gaps.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds meaning for guards_item and source_ref by explaining the graph edge deletion/recreation, which goes beyond the schema. For other parameters, no additional context is provided, but baseline is 3.

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 updates a sentry's fields after creation, specifying the verb 'updates' and resource 'sentry'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sentry by noting it operates on existing sentries.

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 mentions 'after creation' implying the sentry must exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evaluate_sentry or reset_sentry. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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