kvc_update_tenant

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 only says 'Patch safe tenant config fields', implying mutation and safety, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences of the operation.

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 very concise (one sentence) but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary details to be useful, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has one complex parameter (object with additionalProperties), no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced in the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or required permissions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'updates'. It does not explain what valid fields are, the expected structure, or any constraints. The agent gets no help in constructing the parameter beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 patches tenant config fields, specifying the verb 'Patch' and the resource 'tenant config fields'. It distinguishes from read operations like kvc_get_tenant but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools among siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no hints about prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to use this tool over sibling tools.

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