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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is destructive and idempotent, covering the core safety profile. The description adds the 'existing' qualifier but does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, nor what happens if the supplier does not exist. The demo-disabled note is extra but not behaviorally rich.

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 a single concise sentence, verb-first, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 mutation tool with multiple optional fields and no output schema, the description does not explain update semantics (partial vs. full), error handling for non-existent suppliers, or success indicators. This leaves significant gaps beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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%, so all six parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') and identifies the resource ('existing supplier's fields'), clearly distinguishing this tool from create_supplier and delete_supplier. The 'existing' qualifier also prevents any confusion with creation.

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 clearly implies use for modifying an existing supplier, which differentiates it from create/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, and the '[demo: deshabilitada]' prefix suggests an environment limitation but not tool-selection guidance.

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