update_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the update mechanism (dot notation) but fails to mention whether the field must already exist, whether it creates missing fields, if it overwrites values, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by illustrative examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple update tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. However, the lack of annotations and absence of behavioral edge cases (e.g., missing field handling, overwrite behavior) means it is not fully complete for an AI agent to confidently invoke without further assumptions.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by giving real-world examples of dot_path values ('project.description', 'conventions.code_style'), which clarifies the intended format beyond the schema's generic description. It does not explain 'path' or 'value', but the schema handles those.

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: 'Update a specific field in the project context' using dot notation. It provides concrete examples of valid paths, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_context_list or reset_context that perform different operations.

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 usage for updating existing context fields via dot notation, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_to_context_list or remove_context_item. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, only an implied scope.

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