update_cheatsheet

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior, required fields, and a specific error condition. However, it does not mention success response, side effects on other data, or idempotency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides necessary constraints. No extraneous 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?

For an update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, constraints, and error condition. It lacks information about the return value or confirmation, but for a simple partial update it is fairly complete.

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%, so description must add meaning. It states 'Provide at least one field' which implies that either title or content should be provided, adding context beyond the schema's optionality. However, it does not explain cheatsheet_id or provide formatting for title/content.

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's action: 'Partially update a cheatsheet.' It specifies the resource (cheatsheet) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cheatsheet and delete_cheatsheet.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Provide at least one field.' and warns about the CHEATSHEET_LOCKED error when published on Contributor Network, instructing to withdraw first. This effectively tells when and when not to use the tool.

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