wallabag_update_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a partial update (omitted fields presumably preserved), whether it overwrites or appends tags, what permissions are required, or that it mutates remote state irreversibly. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core verb/resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to serve a six-parameter mutation tool.

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, six parameters, and many overlapping siblings, the description should clarify partial-update semantics and its relationship to the field-specific update tools. The output schema's existence relieves it of return-value detail, but the mutation/selection gaps remain.

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 every parameter including the quirky 'tags' behavior ('set/add depending on wallabag version') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('wallabag entry') with scope narrowed to 'metadata/state'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from dedicated siblings like wallabag_star_entry, wallabag_archive_entry, wallabag_unstar_entry or wallabag_add_tags_to_entry, which perform the same state/metadata changes for individual fields.

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 general updater versus the field-specific siblings (star_entry, archive_entry, add_tags_to_entry). No prerequisites, no mention that it is a partial update, and no when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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