Update a Mudbase document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does a solid job: it discloses that this is a partial update and that omitted fields are left untouched, a key behavioral trait that prevents an agent from assuming the entire document is replaced. It does not cover auth, errors, or response shape, but the core mutation behavior is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core verb and resource, while the second sentence explains exactly how the 'data' parameter is applied, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with a fully described schema, this description is nearly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of any mention of return values or error behavior, but that does not block correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the 'data' parameter: it is the only source of changes, and fields omitted from it are preserved. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'document fields as a plain JSON object' description.

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 action ('partially update') and the resource ('an existing document'), and distinguishes this from create/delete by emphasizing that the document already exists. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the partial-update semantics are unambiguous.

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 'existing document' and the explanation that only fields in 'data' are changed imply this tool should be used when modifying a subset of an existing document's fields. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references, so usage guidance is only implied.

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