Update A Classification

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that only supplied fields are changed (partial update via PATCH) and that the modified object is returned. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and there is no contradiction. It provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Updating a classification' vs 'update an existing Company Settings'). The endpoint and required parameters are front-loaded, but the mention of 'Company Settings' may cause confusion. Slightly less than ideal conciseness.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, partial update behavior, and return of modified object. However, it lacks details on error cases, permissions, or the structure of the returned object. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameters in the input schema have descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description highlights required parameters (project_id, id) but does not add additional meaning for the optional fields (name, abbreviation, is_active) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates a classification associated with a project, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource. However, it introduces some confusion by referring to 'Company Settings' instead of 'classification' consistently, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_classification'.

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 basic guidance on when to use (to update an existing classification) but fails to mention when not to use or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_a_new_classification' or 'delete_a_classification'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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