grocy_objects_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: writes require an explicit confirm=true and otherwise perform a dry-run preview. It does not address permissions or what happens when a field is invalid, but the dry-run gate is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus endpoint is front-loaded ahead of the dry-run caveat. Nothing to cut.

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?

This is a generic mutation over 36 enum entities with a free-form nested fields object and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about which entities are writable versus read-only views (stock_current_locations, sessions, products_average_price look like views) or what the response contains. The dry-run hint is helpful but the entity-surface caveat is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is described in the schema, including the confirm const-true wrinkle and object_id's exclusive minimum, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the dry-run framing, which duplicates the schema's confirm description. 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 (Edit) and resource (one Grocy object) plus the underlying endpoint PUT /api/objects/{entity}/{objectId}, which pins scope to a single existing record. The word 'Edit' combined with 'one object' implicitly separates it from grocy_objects_create/delete/list/get siblings, though it never names them.

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 only usage guidance is operational ('Omit confirm for a dry-run'), which is useful but covers how to invoke a mutation, not when to pick this generic tool over entity-specific siblings like grocy_users_update or grocy_chore_merge. An agent must infer the choice from the verb alone.

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