update_experiment_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it declares the write operation and required update scope, states that content_type is preserved, specifies that append keeps the original body byte-for-byte, details overwrite prerequisites (allow_body_overwrite config plus confirm_overwrite=true), and notes read-back verification.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE OPERATION warning, then proceeds in tight, information-dense sentences. Every clause (scope, content_type preservation, mode semantics, overwrite preconditions, verification) earns its place with no 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 an output schema present, the description covers the safety profile, preconditions, and mutation semantics an agent needs. Return-value detail is rightly deferred to the output schema, and the read-back verification note ties it together.

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 must compensate; it explains mode semantics and its default and the confirm_overwrite coupling well. id and text are self-evident from their names, but trace_id is left unexplained, keeping this from a 5.

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 ('Update the body of an existing eLabFTW experiment'), and the 'experiment' scoping plus body target distinguishes it from the sibling update_item_body. An agent can identify the target object and mutation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it is a write operation requiring the update write scope, and it lays out append (default) vs overwrite conditions including the required config flag and confirm_overwrite. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to sibling alternatives, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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