Update premises identifier

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: omitted fields retain stored values, null clears nullable metadata, strings preserve leading zeros, and no registry verification is performed. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not get from the structured fields. It doesn't mention concurrency handling for expected_version, but overall it adds strong 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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and each sentence conveys a distinct rule (PATCH semantics, storage format, no verification, scheme_label requirement) with no filler or repetition.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the key update semantics and one validation rule but omits return behavior and several parameters. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent invoking a complex update.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain value storage format, the scheme OTHER/scheme_label dependency, and null-clearing for nullable fields, but leaves location_id, identifier_id, expected_version (optimistic concurrency), farm_id, confirmed, is_preferred, issuer, jurisdiction, and source completely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Update a premises identifier') plus scope ('on a root premises'), which is enough to separate it from add_premises_identifier and delete_premises_identifier. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives PATCH-style semantics but never says when to use this tool versus add_premises_identifier, delete_premises_identifier, or update_location. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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