update_ui_action

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds the precondition that SCRIPTING_ENABLED must be true, which is critical behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on failure or how fields are updated (merge vs replace), but the combination with annotations provides sufficient transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It includes the core action and a key prerequisite in parentheses. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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, the description does not mention return values (e.g., updated record or success status). It also lacks detail on update semantics (partial vs full replacement). For a simple update tool with well-annotated schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% (sys_id and fields are described). The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing UI Action'. It also includes a precondition (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), which adds specificity. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ui_action and get_ui_action.

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 provides a clear precondition for use (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). While it doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, the name and context imply it is for updating existing UI actions, with create_ui_action for creation. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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