Paragraphs Item Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied mutation. It does not state permission/auth requirements, whether revisions are created, whether the update is destructive or reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than useful concision. Structurally fine, semantically thin.

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, a required nested 'fields' object, and no schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It gives no field-level guidance, no auth or revision-impact context, and no scoping information, leaving the agent unequipped to call this correctly even though an output schema covers return values.

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%, and the description gives no meaning for either parameter. The 'fields' parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: true) whose permissible structure is undocumented anywhere, and 'paragraph_id' format is unstated. The description does nothing to compensate.

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?

'Update a paragraph item' states a clear verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and title with no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this from siblings like paragraphs_item_create, paragraphs_item_get, or paragraphs_item_delete. Purpose is decipherable but generic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the other paragraphs_item_* siblings (create/get/list/delete). No prerequisites, no mention of required context such as which parent entity or revision the paragraph belongs to. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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