accelo_update_staff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the administrative scope, that only descriptive fields are editable, that standing/financial_level/username are NOT exposed, and that only non-None fields are sent (partial-update semantics). Missing: auth requirements and reversibility.

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-loaded with the core statement and the administrative warning, then a clean Args list. Efficient, though the Args section largely restates parameter names already visible in the schema.

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 10-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, field constraints, and partial-update behavior well. Auth/permission specifics and whether omitted fields are preserved vs cleared remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, listing and explaining each parameter (id required, firstname, surname, title, email, phone, mobile, fax, position, fields) beyond the bare schema titles. The 'fields' param meaning ('Additional fields to return') adds real value.

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+resource ('Update a staff member's descriptive details') and explicitly scopes which fields are updatable. Does not differentiate from siblings (e.g. update_contact, update_company), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 'ADMINISTRATIVE WRITE — edits another user's record' line implies when to use it (admin context, not self-service), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of an alternative endpoint for self-edits.

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