update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that both form-view and non-form fields are written, details Odoo Command tuples for relational fields, and covers context effects like language and suppressing chatter. However, it does not mention authorization needs or destructive behavior.

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 informative but slightly lengthy; it begins with a note about checking other tools before stating the purpose. However, it is well-structured and each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and complexity (Odoo relational commands), the description covers essential behavioral details, return values, and context examples. It is self-contained and sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'values' parameter in depth, including Odoo Command tuples for one2many/many2many, and the 'context' parameter with examples. 'model' and 'record_id' are not explained, but their purpose is self-evident.

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 'Update fields on an existing record,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (record). It distinguishes from create and archive by implication, and also mentions checking find_skill/list_workflows for canonical recipes.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create, archive, or execute_action. It only advises checking for recipes before multi-step work, not when to prefer update.

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