update_record

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Update" implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose partial-update behavior, missing-record semantics, permissions, or other safety context.

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 single sentence is short, readable, and front-loaded, with no structural clutter. However, its brevity provides almost no value beyond the tool name, making it under-specified rather than usefully concise.

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?

The rich input schema and presence of an output schema reduce what the description must explain, but this remains an unannotated mutation with five parameters and a nested body. A minimal restatement is not complete enough; it should at least clarify partial updates and routing versus related record tools.

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%, including the important partial-update semantics of `body` and the response-shaping options `expand` and `fields`. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the high schema coverage supports the baseline score.

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 identifies an update to an existing record, but it simply verbalizes `update_record` without adding scope or distinguishing it from siblings such as `update_collection` or `create_record`. This makes it largely tautological rather than informative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisite, or alternative. The word "existing" only weakly implies that creation requires another tool; `create_record` is never named.

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