Runn: update person/placeholder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the PATCH method and states 'Only provided fields change', which is useful partial-update semantics. Missing are details about error handling, return values, or permissions, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Update a person or placeholder'), and every clause earns its place. It includes the endpoint, common use cases, and a key behavioral note without wasteful words.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers purpose, usage examples, and partial-update behavior, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks details such as how to obtain personId, implications of null teamId, or expected response, leaving some gaps for a fully self-contained description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps parameters to use cases: firstName/lastName for renaming, email and team for changes, isArchived for archiving, and personId is implied by the resource path. This covers all six parameters with meaningful semantic context, exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a person or placeholder (PATCH /people/{id})'. It outlines specific use cases (rename placeholder, change email/team, archive) and distinguishes from sibling tools like runn_update_project or runn_create_placeholder.

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 explicit usage scenarios: 'Use to rename a freshly created placeholder (firstName/lastName), change email/team, or archive.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using create_placeholder for creation), so it stops short of a 5.

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