Update record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only fields in `data` are changed, explains the `+`/`-` modifiers for multi-relation/file/select fields, and notes file uploads via `files`. This adds meaningful context, though it omits auth requirements and response 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then compactly delivering the non-obvious behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 six parameters and no annotations, the description effectively covers the non-obvious semantics: partial updates, modifier syntax, and file uploads. It relies on the schema for standard parameters, and the missing response/error context is a minor gap for a 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that `data` is a partial update object and by explaining the `+`/`-` key conventions and the `files` upload mechanism. Standard parameters like `expand` and `fields` are self-explanatory 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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing record by id', and specifies the partial-update scope. It distinguishes itself from create/delete tools by saying 'existing record', but does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool: updating an existing record with field-level changes. The partial-update semantics ('Only the fields present in data are changed') help an agent choose this over other operations, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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