nexus_update_country

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the endpoint and the success/error return shape, but does not describe side effects, required authentication, or behavior when both parameters are omitted. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and a compact return summary. Both sentences earn their place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter mutation with a clear schema, annotations, and a stated return shape, the description is mostly complete. A small gap is the absence of authentication context or clarification of country value format beyond 'name/code', but the schema covers the essential invocation semantics.

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%; both `country` and `user_id` are already explained with optionality and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 states a specific action ('Update a user's country') and the implementation route ('via v2 GraphQL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling profile-update tools such as nexus_update_about_me and nexus_update_preferences by naming the exact resource being modified.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no stated prerequisites, and no comparison to related update tools. The intended use must be inferred almost entirely from the tool name.

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