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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the authorization requirement ('Owner or office') and that archiving is a soft state change via the archived flag, which are genuinely useful. It omits partial-update semantics (are unlisted fields preserved?) and whether archiving is reversible, both important for a mutation.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the archive case attached inline; the trailing 'Owner or office.' is terse but carries real information. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation intent plus auth requirement are covered. Still, for a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the missing partial-update and reversibility details leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 7 parameters. It maps the field groups (name, contact details, note, archived) to roughly four of them, but account_number and vendor_id are never mentioned and no format or length expectations are added.

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?

Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a supplier') with the editable field groups named (name, contact details, note) and the archive variant spelled out. It reads clearly against siblings vendors_create and vendors_list, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the parenthetical 'archived: true' shorthand for archiving. 'Owner or office.' is a permission note, not a routing rule, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and vendors_create or vendors_list.

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