update_country

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'edit' action. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, how missing records are handled, or what side effects occur. 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?

At just four words, the description is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks structure and substance for a tool with four required parameters, making it more of a stub than an efficient description. Every word is necessary, but no meaningful detail is conveyed.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not mention required inputs, how the country is identified, what the update affects, or what the response contains. The annotations cover only safety hints, so the description carries no contextual load.

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 only 25%, with only country_id having a description. The description 'Edit a country' does not clarify the meaning of name, name_short, or iso3166_alpha2, leaving three parameters entirely unexplained. It adds zero semantic value for the parameters.

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 'Edit a country' clearly identifies the action (edit) and the resource (country), distinguishing it from country creation, retrieval, and deletion. However, it lacks detail on which fields can be updated or how the country is identified, so it is clear but not fully informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_country, get_country, or search_countries. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or any context for choosing update_country.

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