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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that updates are partial, that at least one field must be passed, and that the SUP number and review stamp are not writable here. It does not describe failure behavior or return value, but the central mutation semantics are transparent.

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 tight sentences front-load the action and then add only the essential behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is easy to scan.

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?

With 11 parameters, all fully documented in the schema, and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the important operational context: partial updates, at-least-one requirement, and non-writable fields. It leaves minor gaps such as return value and not-found behavior, but the tool remains callable correctly from this definition.

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 100% and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the partial-update contract, requiring at least one field, and clarifying that the supplier identifier can be a SUP number or name and that the SUP/stamp fields are excluded.

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 and resource: 'Change any of a supplier's fields', then enumerates the field groups. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like supplier_add, supplier_remove, supplier_get, and supplier_mark_reviewed by stating what this tool updates and what it does not.

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 clear partial-update usage guidance: 'Only the fields you pass change; pass at least one.' It also names an explicit alternative for the excluded review-stamp behavior: 'supplier_mark_reviewed does the stamp.' It does not explicitly contrast with supplier_add or supplier_get, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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