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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not disclose that omitted fields are left unchanged, whether updates are partial or full, or any side effects.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but the terseness reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation over 7 parameters with no output schema and no annotation-independent disclosure, the description provides essentially nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them (name, email, phone, status, org_number, vat_number, supplier_id). With zero compensation for a 0%-coverage schema, this is a severe gap.

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 'Update a supplier' merely restates the tool name and title, adding no specific fields, scope, or distinguishing detail. Only the noun 'supplier' versus siblings like update_customer or update_item gives any hint of what it operates on.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no differentiation from update_customer, update_item, or the create_supplier/delete_supplier siblings. The agent is left to infer everything.

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