xref_updateFormat

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the change is global (affecting every xref of that style) or per-instance, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens on an invalid format value.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing — the sentence conveys almost no information beyond the tool name, so there is little content to be concise about.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a partially undocumented schema, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which reference is targeted, what a valid format is, or what side effects to expect before invoking it.

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 description coverage is only 33%: 'index' and 'appliedFormat' are bare names with no schema description, and only 'document_id' is documented. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, and in particular never explains what valid values 'appliedFormat' accepts or how 'index' identifies the target reference, leaving the two required parameters opaque.

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?

It names a verb and a resource ('Update the format of a cross-reference') and is distinguishable from xref_create/xref_list siblings. However, 'the format' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether this edits a cross-reference format definition or the applied format on one existing reference (the schema's 'appliedFormat' suggests the latter). The core action is stated but under-specified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The presence of xref_create and xref_list as siblings, plus format-oriented siblings like style_listCharacter, makes the intended context entirely a matter of inference. No prerequisites 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.