telys_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value beyond these by disclosing concrete failure modes not in the annotations: missing/null ids fail with an exact error message, failures on nonexistent collections, ids/texts length mismatch, and the defaulting of the partition key when metadata is omitted. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with its purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place: usage context, required-parameter contract, sibling alternative, optional metadata semantics, and failure conditions. It is dense rather than padded, though slightly long; the parenthetical alternative guidance could arguably be folded in.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, parameter relationships, and all documented failure modes. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the return value on success, which is minor given the otherwise thorough treatment.

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 carries the full explanatory burden and largely succeeds: it labels collection/texts/ids as required, clarifies texts are re-embedded, insists ids must be existing, and specifies metadata is one object per text with partition-key defaulting. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema types; only minor details like text formatting or id-matching semantics are absent.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Replace the vectors/metadata of EXISTING ids by re-embedding new texts, then persist.' It clearly states the operation is for correction of known rows and explicitly differentiates from telys_upsert, whose insert-or-replace semantics are the inverse of this tool's require-existing-ids behavior.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Use for deliberate corrections to known rows' and names the alternative explicitly — 'use telys_upsert to insert-or-replace instead.' It also spells out the contract condition (ids must exist) that routes an agent to the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to pick this over a sibling.

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