engagement_details_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 3 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes valid updates, expected outcomes, or error handling. The context demands more information than provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), the description adds no semantic information beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'engagementId' refers to, what fields in 'engagement' can be updated, or what 'metadata' is for. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 an existing engagement's details' clearly states the action (update) and target (engagement details), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'details' or differentiate from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_create' or 'calls_update', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. With sibling tools like 'engagement_details_create' and 'engagement_details_get', there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing engagement) or when this update is appropriate versus other update tools in the system.

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