digikey_update_mylist_line

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

With annotations already covering readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds the important two-mode behavior: preview by default or explicit confirmation to replace an existing line. It does not describe permissions or side effects in detail, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the operation and mode switch efficiently, making it easy to scan before opening the schema.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations, so return values and safety hints are partially covered. However, for a four-parameter mutation-like operation with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it omits parameter semantics, consequences of replacement, and guidance against sibling alternatives.

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 for parameter meaning, but it only hints at confirm and the target line. It does not explain list_id, unique_id, or the fields within the nested RequestedLine object, leaving most required parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific action (preview or explicitly confirm replacement) and a tightly scoped resource (one existing MyList line). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like apply_mylist_changes or remove_mylist_line, but the singular line and replacement framing are clear enough to distinguish the operation.

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 phrase 'Preview or explicitly confirm' implies a two-phase usage model, with confirm controlling commit versus preview. However, it never states when this tool is preferable to sibling tools such as preview_mylist_changes, apply_mylist_changes, or remove_mylist_line, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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