update_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'update' with no mention of side effects, permissions, partial updates, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but is so minimal that it omits useful context, though that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness issue.

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 that the schema fully documents the parameters and there are no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance on usage, potential outcomes, and limitations. For a simple CRUD tool this is acceptable but not complete enough to handle edge cases or clarify when to use it.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (entity_set, id, data), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states 'Update an existing record in a Dataverse table' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from create/delete/get through the word 'update', but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it is clear but lacks explicit 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_record or delete_record. The description simply states the action without any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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