Update item

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

While annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical nuance well beyond them: read-merge-write semantics, dry-run by default, confirm:true to apply, and preview of the merged body. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, merge behavior, and execution model. No filler or redundancy.

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 28-param update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract (merge, dry-run, confirm) and safety profile. It doesn't enumerate field-level details, but the merge statement covers all fields collectively. Minor gap: no mention of special parameters like auditUser.

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 only 11%, so the description should compensate for 28 mostly undocumented parameters. It does not add meaning to individual fields (e.g., mpn vs upc vs sku); it only says 'fields' generically. The confirm parameter is already explained in the schema, not in the description.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Edit' and resource 'existing firearm record', clearly distinguishing this update tool from create/delete/search siblings. It also states the merge behavior, which reinforces that this is a partial-update tool.

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?

It provides clear context—use when editing an existing firearm record—and explains the dry-run/confirm workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_acquisition for acquisition records), but the scope is unambiguous enough for intended use.

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