clio_update_damage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool updates a damage and routes through a specific API, but offers no information on side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or the structure of the arguments JSON. This is severely lacking.

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 short but includes extraneous routing details that are unlikely to help an agent. It fails to include essential operational details, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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's purpose (updating a damage record) and the lack of annotations or observable output schema details (despite having one), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the arguments JSON should contain, what the update does, or what the output looks like.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description or format guidance. The description adds zero meaning beyond what the input schema provides, leaving the agent entirely in the dark about how to construct valid input.

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 effectively restates the tool name as 'update_damage' without providing specifics on what updating a damage entails, such as which fields or attributes can be modified. It does not differentiate this from sibling tools like clio_create_damage or clio_delete_damage.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would warrant an update operation over a create or delete.

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