Contract Testing: Patch Pacticipant

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and no idempotency or destructiveness. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, error handling, or power of the patch operation beyond what is already clear from the name and annotations.

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 brief but includes a redundant parameter list already present in the input schema. The 'Toolset' header adds organizational value. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise by omitting the parameter list.

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?

Lacks information about return value or response format (no output schema). Does not explain what happens after a successful patch or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves ambiguity about what the agent can expect.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description repeats these parameter descriptions, adding no new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Partially update a pacticipant's metadata — only fields provided are changed.' This explicitly defines the action and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'contract-testing_update_pacticipant' which likely performs a full 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?

The description implies usage for partial updates through the word 'Partially' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like the full update tool. No direct guidance on when not to use it.

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