Api privacy data recipients update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds nothing about the mutation itself. It does not say the body replaces the recipient record (full update vs patch), what permissions are required, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving no useful information for the agent.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and an untyped free-form body. The description should at minimum explain the full-update semantics and what belongs in body; it does none of that.

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% and both parameters (id, body) are completely undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — yet it says nothing about the required id or the opaque free-form body object. No compensation for the coverage gap whatsoever.

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 says the endpoint 'allows data recipients to be viewed or edited', a generic phrase that does not name the update action this tool performs (PUT-style full update) nor distinguish it from siblings like _partial_update, _retrieve, or _list. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this reads or writes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus _partial_update, _retrieve, or _create. The 'viewed or edited' phrasing actively muddies the choice between read and write siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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