Update an existing program's editable fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | ||
| cost | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| time | No | ||
| season | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| age_max | No | ||
| age_min | No | ||
| cost_num | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| program_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| listing_status | No | ||
| openings_remaining | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose idempotency, authorization requirements, error handling, or effects on related data.
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 very concise at one sentence, but is too sparse for the complexity of the tool. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter relationships.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it merely says 'editable fields' without specifying which of the 14 parameters are editable or providing any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types.
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 'existing program', and specifies scope 'editable fields'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like org_update_program_capacity and org_archive_program, which focus on narrower aspects.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as org_update_program_capacity (for capacity only) or org_archive_program (for archiving). No when-not or prerequisite information is given.
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.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
