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

With destructiveHint=true already indicating the operation is destructive, the description adds valuable context by stating that only provided fields change, preventing unintended overwrites. It also includes the REST endpoint for technical clarity. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides useful information: the action, the patch behavior, and the REST endpoint. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is straightforward, and the description covers the key patch semantics that prevent data loss. It lacks details about return values or error behavior, but given the rich schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for a basic update operation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing person, using the verb 'Update' with the resource 'person'. It distinguishes from create/get/list tools by specifying 'existing' and the PATCH method. The note 'Only provided fields change' clarifies the update semantics.

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 implies usage for modifying existing person records, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like twenty_create_person or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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