update_mcptoken

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a fair job: it documents input formats (ISO 8601 single string for dates, FK as related ID, M2M as a list of IDs) and a validation behavior (unknown/read-only/non-editable fields are rejected, never silently ignored). It omits auth requirements and return behavior, but the disclosed format and rejection semantics are substantive.

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?

Purpose and the format rules are front-loaded, followed by an organized field list. The field enumeration is long but justified for a loosely-typed 'data' parameter. Minimal wasted prose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the field surface, input formats, and rejection behavior an agent needs to call it correctly. Gaps remain around return values and permissions, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema's 'data' object is only described as 'The fields to update'. The description compensates by enumerating every accepted field with its type and defining the date/FK/M2M input conventions, adding real meaning beyond the loose schema. The 'inlines' all-or-nothing rule lives in the schema rather than the description, so it is not double-counted.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing MCP Token'), and adds the partial-update semantic ('Only the fields sent are changed'). It doesn't name sibling alternatives like bulk_mcptoken or action_mcptoken, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 'Only the fields sent are changed' and 'optional inline updates' phrasing imply this is the tool for partial edits of an existing token, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs create_mcptoken/delete_mcptoken guidance or when-not condition. Usage must be inferred.

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