update_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, atomicity, or behavior on no matches. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is two sentences long with no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information about the tool's function and a key constraint.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and requires handling nested objects, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and usage patterns like parameter structures.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'query' as non-empty. It provides no explanation for 'entity_name' or 'data' fields, which are objects. The description adds no value over the raw schema names.

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 clearly states the action (update records) and the condition (matching a query filter). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_records, delete_records, and read_records by specifying the update operation with a filter.

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?

The description provides only a prerequisite (non-empty query) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool over, e.g., create_records or delete_records.

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