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

The 'WRITE:' prefix is consistent with destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotation: 'Only the fields you supply are sent' discloses partial-update semantics, and the PUT /constituent/{id} endpoint is given. It still omits permission needs and what happens to omitted or invalid values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE classification, the verb/resource, then the partial-update rule and endpoint. No filler; every clause conveys actionable information.

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 20-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essentials (what it mutates, patch semantics, endpoint) but leaves much parameter-level and outcome-level detail undocumented. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

With 20 parameters at only 45% schema description coverage, the description must carry more weight, and it only groups fields generically (names, job, status, primary address/email/phone). Many parameters (gender, website, employer, birthdate, recognition_name) get no added meaning in either place, so it partially but not fully compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('update fields on an existing constituent's profile') plus the field groups touched, and the word 'existing' separates it from bloomerang_create_constituent. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by reference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for modifying an already-created constituent. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement that create should be used for new records, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the record must exist).

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