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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates well by explaining partial-update behavior, the at-least-one-field rule, and that identification can be by SUP number or name. It does not mention error or return behavior, but nothing contradicts the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and identifier, then the partial-update rule and a cross-reference to a sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 11-parameter update tool with no output schema and neutral annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: identifier format, partial-update behavior, minimum field requirement, and off-limits fields. A note on return value or validation errors would make it even more complete, but an agent has enough 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint not present in the schema: at least one writable field must be passed beyond the required supplier. It also reinforces that the supplier parameter accepts either an id or a name, which is already in the schema but is central to correct use.

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 exactly what the tool does: change any of a supplier's fields by SUP number or name, and it enumerates the writable field groups. It also differentiates the tool from supplier_mark_reviewed by explicitly saying the review stamp is handled there. No ambiguity about the operation or resource.

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?

It gives explicit update semantics: only the fields you pass change, and you must pass at least one. It also provides a clear when-not by stating the SUP number and review stamp are not writable here and pointing to supplier_mark_reviewed for the stamp. This is sufficient to route an agent to the correct sibling.

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