Change a record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: this is a partial update ('Only the fields given change'), which tells the agent untouched fields are preserved rather than nulled. It omits concurrency/conflict behavior, though the schema's version parameter covers that.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and the partial-update semantics before the prerequisite. Every clause earns 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 mutation tool with a nested fields object and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (partial update, prerequisite) and annotations cover the safety profile. It could say more about what happens on version conflict or what a successful change returns, but the schema carries most of that burden.

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%, so all four parameters including the version-based conflict check are already documented. The description's only parameter-adjacent content ('Use find_records first to get the id') duplicates what the id schema description already says, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change fields on a record that exists') and adds the key scope qualifier that only supplied fields change, which distinguishes it from a full replace. It does not explicitly differentiate from near siblings such as create_record, get_record, or propose_change, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides one concrete precondition ('Use find_records first to get the id'), which is genuinely useful context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus propose_change or change_field, and no exclusions or failure conditions beyond the id prerequisite.

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