update_animal

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the key merge behavior: provided fields merge into existing metadata rather than replacing it, so unrelated fields are preserved. This is a valuable non-obvious behavioral trait not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the merge rule stated clearly. The parenthetical list of fields is redundant with the schema but not overly verbose; the description remains efficient and readable.

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 an update tool with 11 parameters and one required, the description covers what can be changed and the merge semantics. It does not describe the return value (no output schema exists), but this is a minor gap for a mutating tool whose safety profile is already annotated.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the field list already present in the schema and restates the merge behavior also described in the metadata parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Update an existing animal's details') with a clear resource (animal) and lists the updatable fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_record or update_chute_session, but the resource is unambiguous from name and description.

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 implies when to use the tool (to modify animal details) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer (e.g., delete_animal, create_animal, or update_record). No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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