update_tile

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies dual behavior (update or create) but does not specify what triggers creation (e.g., non-existent tileId), whether setting fields to null deletes them, or any side effects. Permissions and idempotency are not mentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be more informative by listing key updatable attributes (e.g., 'title, icon, URL, content, and status') without adding bulk.

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's complexity (nested input object, six parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value, error handling, and critical behavioral details like creation vs update logic, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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?

Although the input schema includes property descriptions, the context indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the agent likely relies on the tool description alone. The description provides no parameter-level details, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of fields like 'iconURL' or 'status'.

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 'Update or create a tile in a Slite note' clearly specifies the verb (update/create), resource (tile), and context (Slite note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_note' (updates the note itself) and 'create_note' (creates a new note). However, it does not differentiate between the update and create behaviors based on tile ID existence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_note' or 'create_note' is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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