update_entry

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

No annotations present, so description must cover behavior. It discloses partial update (only provided fields changed) and error for missing entry_id. However, it does not mention side effects, atomicity, or return value. The output schema likely covers return, but behavioral details are somewhat limited.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence is necessary: purpose, partial update behavior, error condition. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: update operation, partial update, and error. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., dataset existence) or versioning impact, but overall is fairly complete for an update 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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters beyond mentioning 'fields' and 'id'. It does not clarify required parameters (dataset_path, entry_id) or the meaning of optional fields like question, answer, etc. The description adds minimal value over the parameter names.

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 fields of an existing working-tree entry by its id. It mentions partial update behavior and error case. This distinguishes it from add_entry (adds), delete_entry (deletes), and list_entries (lists).

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 implies use for updating existing entries, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings like add_entry. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the error condition is mentioned.

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