updateActionPlanPerson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without addressing side effects, required preconditions (e.g., existing ActionPlanPerson), valid status values, or whether other fields are unaffected. This is a minimal mutation description with no added context.

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, concise sentence with no verbose or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is so brief that it misses opportunities to include valuable context, preventing a perfect score.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description is still incomplete for a mutation tool. It fails to clarify that only the status is updated, that the referenced person must already be part of an action plan, or any detail about valid status transitions. The potential ambiguity of 'a person's action plan status' further reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions (id as 'ActionPlanPerson ID', status as 'New status'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'a person's action plan status', making the tool's primary purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like updateAutomationPerson, though it could be more explicit about updating the ActionPlanPerson entity itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updatePerson or updateAutomationPerson. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are included.

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