Update A Change Event Type

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is consistent with annotations and adds moderate value.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then required parameters and API endpoint. It is concise without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, update behavior, required parameters, and API reference. It does not explain return structure (acceptable) or prerequisites, but is largely complete for a simple 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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description reiterates that company_id and id are required, but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. No compensation needed.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'Specific Change Event Type for a Company'. It specifies partial update behavior and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_change_event' or 'update_a_change_event_status', though the resource name makes it implicit.

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 existing change event types and notes partial update behavior. It lists required parameters but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives. Usage is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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