Paragraphs Type Update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no statement about required permissions, whether this is a partial patch or full replace, what happens to fields left null (all four params default to null), or whether the operation is reversible. 'Update' is the only behavioral signal.

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 sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it is a stripped fragment of what an agent needs for a four-parameter mutation tool. Nothing is wasted, yet almost nothing is said.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves critical gaps: patch vs replace semantics, permission requirements, and the meaning of the optional fields. The result is inadequate for this tool's complexity.

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 for four undocumented parameters (label, weight, type_id, description) and it does not mention any of them. It only implies that a type is identified implicitly, without clarifying that type_id is the required selector.

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 single sentence states a clear verb+resource pair ('update' + 'paragraph type'), and 'existing' scopes it to a persisted entity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the surrounding siblings (paragraphs_type_create, paragraphs_type_delete, paragraphs_type_get) or indicate the update scope, which is limited to label/weight/description.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus paragraphs_type_get, paragraphs_type_create, paragraphs_type_delete, or the parallel paragraphs_item_* family. The word 'existing' weakly implies a prior-create prerequisite, but there is no explicit when/when-not direction or named alternative.

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