upsert_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the upsert behavior (update if exists, create if not), specifying the key mechanism (duplicate prevention field or record ID), and mentioning the field value format requirement. It doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: first explains the tool's core functionality, second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more concise but efficiently conveys essential 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the upsert behavior, providing usage prerequisites, and clarifying field format. It covers the essential context needed to understand when and how to use this tool versus alternatives like create_record or update_record. Minor gaps exist regarding error handling and response format.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that fields should be specified as { 'value': ... } format, which clarifies the structure beyond the schema's generic description. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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 purpose: 'upsert 機能を使用します' (use upsert functionality) with specific details about using a duplicate prevention field or record ID as a key to update if exists or create if not. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_record' and 'update_record' by specifying this hybrid behavior.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: '実行前に `get_form_fields` や `get_form_layout` でフィールド構造を確認し、利用するフィールドコードが最新であることをチェックしてから実行してください' (Before execution, check field structure with get_form_fields or get_form_layout and verify field codes are up-to-date). It mentions specific sibling tools to use first and provides clear prerequisites.

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