update_author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses partial-update behavior, that unknown/read-only/non-editable fields are rejected rather than ignored, and the field-type formatting rules. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any indication of the response or side effects on related records.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then formatting rules, then the field list — a logical ordering. The enumerated field list is long but earns its place because the schema's 'data' object does not name the fields. Minor verbosity in the format examples.

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 tool with nested inline objects and no annotations or output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics, field formats, validation behavior, and inline all-or-nothing handling. The main gap is the absence of any statement about the return value or auth requirements, which with no output schema would have been helpful.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond it: ISO 8601 format for date/datetime, related-object ID for foreign keys, and a list of IDs for many-to-many fields. It also enumerates the updateable Author fields, which the generic 'data' object in the schema does not.

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 Author') and clarifies the partial-update semantics ('Only the fields sent are changed'), which distinguishes it from create_author/delete_author without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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 implied by 'existing Author' and the partial-update framing, so an agent can infer it edits rather than creates or fetches. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (create_author, bulk_author), leaving the choice to inference.

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