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

The annotations already define this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds the important behavioral detail that this is a partial update rather than a full replacement, but it does not describe permissions, side effects, or response behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key partial-update instruction. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 an update tool with 9 parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description gives the essential patch semantics. It remains sparse about field behavior, omitted-field handling, and when to choose this over related student 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 56%, with studentId and several fields documented in the schema. The description adds only the general patch-style rule of sending changed fields, without clarifying individual fields or the undocumented enum/numeric parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Updates a student's profile." It is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_student, but it does not explicitly contrast with create_student or explain when updating is appropriate.

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?

"Send only what changes" gives useful partial-update guidance and implies the tool is for modifying existing students. However, it does not state when to use this versus create_student or get_student, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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