dawarich_update_visit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose mutation side effects, whether specific fields are overwritten, the behavior of dry_run, or authorization requirements. The read-before-write hint is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and contains a typo ('Dawarick' vs 'Dawarich'). It does not waste words, but the single sentence omits critical details that would make it more useful.

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 complexity (8 params, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain partial vs full update semantics, the dry_run flag, or when to use bulk alternatives. The read-before-write hint is a start but not sufficient for reliable use.

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, but it does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Parameter names like dry_run and status have implied meanings but lack context (e.g., accepted values, whether updates are partial). The description adds no 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 clearly states the tool updates a Dawarich visit, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create/delete tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_update_visit_status. The phrase 'after reading its current value' adds workflow context but not differentiation.

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 a prerequisite (read current value before updating) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like dawarich_bulk_update_visit_status.

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