update_grist_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that records are updated and returns a dict with status, message, and IDs, but it does not disclose failure behaviors, side effects, or authorization requirements. Basic mutation transparency is present, but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with sections: verb statement, prerequisites, workflow, args, and returns. Every sentence is useful and front-loaded with purpose, achieving conciseness without waste.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, return object), the description covers prerequisites, workflow, parameter formats, and return values. It lacks error handling details, but is fairly complete for its scope. Output schema exists, so return explanation is adequate.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (doc_id, table_id, records) and provides a concrete example for the records parameter, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 it updates existing records in a Grist table, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_grist_records and delete_grist_records by its focus on updates.

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 explicitly lists a prerequisite (list_records to obtain IDs) and provides a typical two-step workflow. This guides the agent on when and how to use it, and implies it requires prior listing.

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