Contract Testing: Update Pacticipant

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

Annotations already establish idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful behavioral trait that this is a full replacement rather than a merge, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid overwriting metadata unintentionally.

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 definition is well organized: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a short toolset line, and a scannable parameter list. It is slightly redundant with the input schema, but every element is relevant and there is no filler.

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?

With all six parameters documented in the schema, annotations covering idempotency/safety, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essential semantics of the operation. The only notable gap is that it doesn't contrast with the patch sibling or clarify the effect of omitting optional fields, but this is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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% and the description's parameter list mostly repeats the schema's own descriptions verbatim. It adds no new format, default, or side-effect information about individual parameters, so it stays at the baseline for a fully documented 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 opening phrase 'Fully replace a pacticipant's metadata' uses a specific verb ('replace'), names the resource ('pacticipant'), and distinguishes this from the sibling patch tool by emphasizing full replacement. It states the exact fields involved, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool acts on.

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 'Fully replace' wording implies this tool is appropriate when the caller wants to overwrite the whole metadata set, and the Toolset label provides loose grouping context. However, it never names the obvious sibling contract-testing_patch_pacticipant or says to prefer that tool for partial updates, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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