update_fund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation writes to a local replica and warns against uncertain values, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or what happens after the write. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a necessary guardrail. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema and output schema cover parameter details and return shape, and the description covers the core purpose and the 'verified values' rule. Still, it lacks explicit usage routing among siblings and does not describe behavioral side effects, so the agent is left to infer when and how safely to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document fund_id, fields, sources, and append_notes. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general warning to send only certain values, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 ('Write verified fields for one fund') and adds a critical scope qualifier ('to the local replica'), which distinguishes it from the sync_db sibling. The warning about only sending certain values reinforces the operation's intent.

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 instruction 'Only send values you are certain of' is a clear input-quality guideline, and 'local replica' implies this is for local persistence rather than syncing. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as save_material or sync_db, leaving the choice mostly implied.

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