Update Vendor

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing PATCH semantics ('Only the provided fields will be changed') and includes an example. This clarifies idempotent behavior (matching idempotentHint=true) and lack of destructiveness. 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?

Two sentences plus example, conveying essential information upfront. Bilingual repetition adds minor redundancy but remains concise overall.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the PATCH mechanism, required field (id), and provides an example. Adequate for a simple update tool.

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% description coverage, so the schema already explains all 6 parameters. The description adds an example but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing vendor' with specific verb and resource. The PATCH semantics are explicitly mentioned, and an example is provided, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vendor or delete_vendor.

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?

While the description implicitly indicates usage for updating vendors, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_vendor for new vendors). No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given.

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