Update departments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'soft-delete' which is a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose other important aspects such as whether changes are reversible, idempotency, authorization requirements, or response 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheses to list additional actions concisely. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits key contextual information such as idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid department id), response format, and error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 40% (only id and users have descriptions). The description adds meaning by mapping actions (rename, reparent, members, soft-delete) to parameters (title, parentId, users, deleted), partially compensating for the low coverage, but does not detail valid values or format constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'department' and lists concrete actions (rename, reparent, members, soft-delete), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, and create.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that it is for modifying a department, but lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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