update_carrier

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', implying a modification, but does not mention permissions required, whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects like partial updates or field resetting.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity results in a lack of structure. It is front-loaded but fails to provide useful context beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not specify return value, side effects, or error conditions. Given the parameter count of 5, more contextual information is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply repeating the action without clarifying parameter roles or constraints.

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 'Update a carrier user' clearly indicates a mutation operation on a carrier, differentiating it from 'create_carrier' and 'get_carrier'. However, it does not specify the scope of 'carrier user' or distinguish it from other sibling tools beyond the name.

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 tool vs alternatives. There is no explicit context for when to choose 'update_carrier' over other tools, such as 'create_carrier' or 'get_carrier'. Usage conditions are entirely implied.

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