Update Functionality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavior of its own: nothing about partial-update semantics (the schema's 'empty array removes all; omitting or null leaves unchanged' rule is buried in a parameter, not stated up front), no permission or cascade notes. For a 25+ field mutation it discloses essentially nothing beyond 'updates'.

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?

Six words, front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted — but it is concise to the point of under-specification for a complex mutation tool. Brevity here buys no extra clarity over the title.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is rich, so return values and field-level semantics need not be repeated. What is missing is any framing an agent needs before calling it: which attributes are updatable in practice, whether the update is a full replace or a patch, and any preconditions. Given the mutation's breadth and the openWorld hint, the definition is thin.

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 50%, but the nested attribute object is thoroughly documented (deprecated slug ignored, id accepted but ignored, list-vs-null semantics for owner arrays). The description contributes only 'by id', which the schema's id field already explains in more detail. Baseline 3 for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific functionality') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which separates it cleanly from get_functionality, create_functionality and list_functionalities. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the broader family of ~100 update_* tools beyond the resource noun, but the noun does the work here.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this over get_functionality or update_catalog_entity, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the functionality must exist). The only implicit signal is that it is a mutation rather than a read.

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