arango_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it updates a document, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like whether updates are partial/complete, if it returns the updated document, error handling, or permissions required. With annotations covering the destructive nature, it earns a baseline score for not contradicting them.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 params, no output schema) and annotations only covering destructiveness, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage context.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (collection, key, update). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints on the update object. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param info.

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 ('a document in a collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like arango_insert or arango_remove, which also operate on documents, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document key), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like arango_insert (for creation) or arango_remove (for deletion), leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.

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