Contract Testing: Update Pacticipant

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

The description indicates a write operation ('fully replace'), but the annotation claims readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. This severely undermines the agent's ability to understand the tool's behavior. Beyond the contradiction, the description does not disclose permission requirements or side effects of omitted fields.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and a structured parameter list. However, the bullet list is redundant given the schema's property descriptions, wasting some space.

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?

The description lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavior when fields are omitted (e.g., are they cleared?). No output schema is provided, leaving the agent uncertain about the response.

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%, so the description's parameter list adds no new information beyond what is already in the schema. It does not provide additional context like format constraints or default values.

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 description clearly states 'Fully replace a pacticipant's metadata' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields involved and, combined with the title and sibling tools (e.g., patch_pacticipant), effectively distinguishes from similar operations.

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 updating pacticipant metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_pacticipant or create_pacticipant. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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