update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dryRun workflow requirement, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a successful update. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a critical workflow requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by the important constraint.

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 complex update tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. The dryRun guidance is helpful, but it doesn't cover parameter meanings, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should do more given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description provides almost no parameter information. It mentions 'dryRun' implicitly in the workflow guidance, but doesn't explain any of the other 7 parameters (baseId, table, records, typecast, idempotencyKey, conflictStrategy, ifUnchangedHash). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('Airtable records'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create', 'upsert', and 'query' by focusing on modifying existing records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'upsert' which might also update records.

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 guidance about a prerequisite workflow ('requires diff-before-write via dryRun first'), which gives important context about when to use this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'upsert' or 'create', but the dryRun requirement provides meaningful usage context.

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