edit_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of append-only and that only specified fields are modified, which is critical for safe usage. It does not mention permissions or return format, but for this straightforward edit operation, the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 a single concise sentence in German, front-loaded with the action and key scoping details. No filler or redundant information.

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 description covers the core purpose and a critical behavior, but lacks explicit usage context and per-parameter details. Given that an output schema exists and parameter names are self-explanatory, it is minimally adequate for a simple edit tool, yet it could be more complete with guidance on when to use 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that 'id' is the entry identifier and other parameters are the fields to edit. The append-only rule applies to all named fields, providing meaningful semantic context beyond bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool modifies fields of an entry by ID, specifying 'only named fields' and 'append-only'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_entry and delete_entry, which handle different operations.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need to change specific fields of an existing entry. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or comparison to alternatives like add_entry or delete_entry. The 'only named fields' hint suggests a partial update, but no explicit exclusions.

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