Contract Testing: Update Pacticipant Version

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

The description states 'Update metadata', implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which typically means the tool does not modify data. This is a contradiction. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide, and fails to address consequences or error states.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is structured, but it could be more concise by omitting the parameter details already present in the schema. The 'Toolset' line provides useful context. Overall, it is efficient but not maximally lean.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain return values or confirmation. It does not mention what happens if the version doesn't exist, whether the update is partial or full, or error scenarios. Annotations provide some safety context, but the description leaves significant gaps for an update operation.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are complete. The description redundantly lists the parameters without adding new meaning or clarifying formats or constraints. Thus, no additional value beyond the 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 description clearly states the action ('Update metadata') and the resource ('pacticipant version'), with the title reinforcing this. It lists the parameters, making the scope evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pacticipant_version' and 'list_pacticipant_versions' by indicating modification.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the version exists, or that only the buildUrl can be updated. No when-not-to-use advice is given.

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