update_signup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose consequential side effects: it can move members to the waiting list and send emails, and it defaults to a safe preview unless confirm=true. Missing details are the exact return shape and whether changes are reversible, but the destructive surface is surfaced well.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then side effects, then the confirm guard. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the preview/commit switch adequately. It is slightly thin on return behavior and the effect on unspecified fields, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the three non-obvious parameters: confirm (preview vs execute), signup_parameter, and signup_comment. signup_id is implicitly the target but never named, which is a minor gap.

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 specific verb (Modifie) and resource (inscription existante) plus the two mutable fields (paramètre et/ou commentaire), making it clearly distinct from add_signup and delete_signup. It is clear without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative.

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 supplies the key operational condition: without confirm=true it is preview only, so the agent knows when it will actually write. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g. delete_signup) for other intents, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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