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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update (only id is required, which hints partial), what happens to omitted fields, whether the ID must already exist, or what errors result from an invalid ID. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise in a way that helps invocation.

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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits update semantics (partial vs full), permission or existence requirements, and the effect of the call. The schema covers parameters, but behavior is left unexplained.

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 all eight parameters are already documented, including the id's provenance from search_suppliers. The description adds nothing beyond "by ID," so the baseline 3 applies.

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 an existing supplier") and the identifier mode ("by ID"), which is clear enough on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling mutations like update_client or update_product, nor from create_supplier/delete_supplier.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_suppliers (to find the ID) or create_supplier (for new records), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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