accelo_update_affiliation

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 says 'Update' but discloses nothing about partial-update semantics (what happens to omitted fields), required permissions, reversibility, or side effects on related contacts/companies. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the argument list, and each line is short with no wasted prose. Structure is clear and scannable, though the arg list is boilerplate rather than informative.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter surface but omits mutation semantics, permissions, and success/failure behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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, and it does list all seven parameters with short labels (email, phone, mobile, position, standing, fields). However the labels are near-tautological ('New email') and add little meaning such as format, allowed values for 'standing', or what 'fields' controls.

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 (update) and resource (affiliation), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like accelo_create_affiliation or accelo_get_affiliation beyond the plain meaning of 'update'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus accelo_create_affiliation, accelo_get_affiliation, or accelo_delete_affiliation, nor any prerequisite or context. The body is purely a parameter list.

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