update_picklist_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required role/permission, which is real auth context. However, it omits behavioral traits such as whether the change replaces all localized labels, solution/transport implications, and reversibility (the merge/replace nuance lives only in the schema).

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the permission prerequisite. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose and the key role requirement while the rich schema covers parameter semantics. Missing only peripheral context like preconditions (option must exist) and solution-scoping behavior, so it is largely sufficient.

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 nine parameters (including the subtle merge_labels replace-vs-merge semantics and the mutually exclusive option_set_name vs entity/attribute pairing). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond re-mentioning label/description, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing option's label/description) and scopes it to Local or Global OptionSet, plus names the underlying Dataverse action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like add_picklist_option or delete_picklist_option, but the mutation target is unambiguous.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite (Customizer or System Administrator role) and identifying context (Local vs Global OptionSet), but never states when to choose this over add_picklist_option or delete_picklist_option, nor what conditions must hold (e.g., option must already exist). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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