Update a subcontractor's verification status. Use to verify (check license/insurance), activate, suspend, or deactivate. Records verification timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subcontractor ID. Required. | |
| notes | No | Verification notes. Optional. | |
| status | Yes | New status. Required. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| subcontractor | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'Records verification timestamp', providing a specific side effect beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions with annotations.
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, no fluff, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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's complexity (3 params, enum status, output schema present), the description adequately covers usage, status transitions, and timestamp recording. It could optionally mention idempotency, but that is already annotated.
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 100% with each parameter described clearly. The tool description groups the enum values into actions (verify, activate, etc.) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'subcontractor's verification status', and enumerates specific actions: verify (check license/insurance), activate, suspend, or deactivate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subcontractors.list (read) and subcontractors.register (create).
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 implies when to use the tool (to change verification status) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that registering a new subcontractor should use subcontractors.register instead. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.
95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.