Contract Testing: Patch Pacticipant

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover mutation safety. It does add useful PATCH-specific behavior ('only fields provided are changed'), but doesn't mention outcomes like 404s, return values, or side effects beyond the metadata change.

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 opening sentence is effective and front-loaded, but the Toolset label and the full parameter list duplicate structured information already present in the schema. The description is reasonably short but not maximally economical.

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 simple patch operation with fully documented parameters, this is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not address what the response contains, how errors are surfaced, or how this differs from the sibling update tool. An agent could invoke it correctly but is not fully equipped to handle edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the parameter list with identical wording, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific verb 'Partially update' and the resource 'pacticipant's metadata', and clarifies the PATCH semantics with 'only fields provided are changed.' This distinguishes it clearly from a full update operation.

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 when to use it (partial update) but never names the alternative contract-testing_update_pacticipant or states when a full update would be preferred. Usage context is implicit rather than explicit.

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