Update A Crew

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed, it returns the modified object, and it uses a PATCH endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including essential details like partial update, return value, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter hints. It explains the partial update nature and return object. It lacks explicit mention of authentication, error handling, or side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 each parameter is described. The description adds value by classifying parameters as URL path parameters (project_id, id) or JSON request body fields (others). This helps the agent understand where to place each parameter.

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 tool updates a crew for a project. It specifies the verb 'updating' and resource 'crew', and mentions partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_a_new_crew or delete_a_crew, which would strengthen clarity.

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 explains when to use ('update an existing Directory records') and lists required parameters, but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The tool is one of many update tools, and the description does not help the agent decide between this and other update tools.

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