update_currency

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that an update occurs. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any consequences of modifying a currency. Since the description adds nothing beyond the annotations, it fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any useful elaboration and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. A good description would provide at least one sentence of meaningful context.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the update does, what fields can be changed, what the response might look like, or any constraints. The agent would have to rely solely on the schema and tool name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% for the two parameters. Both currency_id and round_factor have descriptive text in the schema, including an example for round_factor. The description itself contributes no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 "Update a currency" is a tautology that simply restates the tool name and title. It provides no additional detail about what updating a currency entails, how it differs from related tools like create_currency or get_currency, or what specific aspects of a currency can be modified.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where updating a currency is appropriate, any prerequisites such as the currency already existing, or when to prefer create_currency or other currency-related operations. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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