scf_update_vendor

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it marks the operation as a write, states the 'editor+' role requirement, and specifies the partial-update guarantee that only provided fields are applied. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false without contradicting them.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence of about 20 words. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the resource, the write nature, the required role, and the partial-update behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: existing record, write permission, required role, and partial-update semantics. Combined with full schema property descriptions this is sufficient for correct use, though a note about return value or error behavior would have been a minor improvement.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the useful patch-semantics note that only provided optional fields are updated, but it does not add individual parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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?

States a precise action — 'Update an existing vendor record' — with a clear resource. The qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from create/list/get vendor tools, and 'write — editor+ role' reinforces the operation type. An agent can reliably tell this apart from scf_create_vendor and scf_get_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?

The description clearly implies use for modifying an already-created vendor, and the 'existing vendor record' wording rules out creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as scf_create_vendor or scf_update_custom_risk, but the intended invocation context is unambiguous within the sibling group.

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