Update Thing

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'update' but does not specify whether it performs a full replace, whether missing fields are left unchanged (though name and type are required), whether permissions are needed, or what happens if the thing does not exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and objects, and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 annotations and only a minimal description, the context is incomplete. The description does not mention the existence of an output schema (though that is structured data), nor does it address potential side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. It is barely adequate for a simple tool but lacks the richness expected for a state-changing operation.

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% since every parameter has a description in the schema. The description lists the fields (name, type, state) but does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 (update), the resource (thing), and the specific fields affected (name, type, optional state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like change_thing_state (which only changes state) and create_thing (which creates a new thing).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for updating name/type, nor does it exclude cases where only state changes (which could use change_thing_state). The usage context is entirely implied.

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