update_letter

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether updates are partial, whether all fields are optional except letter_id, or any side effects (e.g., recalculations).

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details for a tool with many parameters. It is front-loaded but under-specified; it meets the minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall effect, return value, or how to properly structure the update request. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide a complete picture.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 14 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states the verb 'updates' and resource 'specified letter', so it conveys the basic action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'change_letter_status' or 'send_letter_by_*', lacking specificity about what fields or behaviors are unique.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'change_letter_status' for status changes or other update tools. No prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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