write_record

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining the idempotent behavior (writing same value succeeds but changes nothing), the destructive nature of setting active=False (archives/deletes), and that the tool reports before/after comparisons. It provides concrete behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true) only hint at.

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 efficiently structured in three paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second explains an edge case (idempotency), and the third warns about destructive behavior. While almost every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more compact by merging the first two sentences into a single line. Overall, it is well-organized and focused.

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 the tool has an output schema (which presumably documents the return format), the description adequately covers all critical aspects: what it does, idempotency, destructive side effects, and change reporting. It is complete for a write tool that only requires model, record_id, and values. No missing information is detected.

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 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains how the 'values' parameter behaves (setting active=False is destructive) and that the report shows before/after. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the 'model' and 'record_id' parameters beyond what is in the schema, though the overall usage is clear from context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Write' with the resource 'one record' and explicitly distinguishes the tool by stating it reports what actually changed. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'create_record' (which creates new records) and 'read_record' (which only reads).

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to write field values and see actual changes) and when it is not a real update (idempotency case). It also provides a key guideline: setting 'active' to False archives the record and is classified as destructive, which helps the agent avoid unintended destructive actions.

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