update_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'partial update', indicating only sent fields are changed, but it does not describe what happens if the record is missing, required permissions, side effects, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes key detail ('partial update'). It is efficient with no fluff, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, error handling, or how to construct the fields object. An agent would lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds that 'fields' are for partial updates, but it does not specify allowed field names, value types, or format. The schema shows 'fields' as an object with additional properties, but the description provides no further semantic meaning beyond the structure.

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 verb 'Update fields' and identifies the resource as an existing service request (sc_request), specifying it is a partial update. It distinguishes from siblings like update_incident or update_requested_item by explicitly naming the record type.

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 implies usage when you have a sys_id and want to modify specific fields, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_table_record or update_incident. No exclusions or contextual conditions are mentioned.

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