store_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses in-place update, updated_at bump, audit metadata retention, no-create behavior, error response for unknown IDs, success return value, and store_scope confinement. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects and outcomes.

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 four sentences, with the primary action stated first and no redundant filler. Each sentence adds unique value: action, error case/alternative, deviation semantics, return value, and scope. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers core behavior, error handling, return value, scope, and a sibling alternative. It is quite complete, but leaves slight ambiguity about whether replacement is full or partial (i.e., whether omitted record fields are cleared). This is a minor gap in an otherwise well-rounded description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only adds specific meaning for 'deviation' (pattern-departure as in store_put) and implicitly for 'record' (data replacement). The parameters app_id, collection, and record_id are left unexplained, relying on self-evident naming. With low coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace an existing record's data in-place — same ID, updated_at bumped, audit metadata retained.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like store_put (create) and store_delete. It also specifies the key behavior of never creating, which further differentiates it.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Never creates: an unknown ID returns {error: not_found} (use store_put to create).' It also provides the context of being confined to store_scope, which informs permission/usage boundaries. This is clear and actionable.

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