Update A Permission Template Assignment For A User On A Project

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) behavior. The description adds that it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. However, it does not explain the openWorldHint=true flag (potential side effects) or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the return value. Every sentence adds value: return type, usage guidance, required parameters, and API context. No redundant or extraneous information.

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's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage, and partial update behavior. It mentions the return of user_id and permission_template_id and that the modified object is returned. However, without an output schema, more detail on the full return object structure would enhance completeness, but it is nearly sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description restates required parameters but adds no significant semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does note the API endpoint and HTTP method (PATCH), implying partial update, but this is already inferable. No extra details like value ranges or format constraints.

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 permission template assignment for a user on a project, including the return of user_id and permission_template_id. It explicitly mentions updating existing Directory records and that only supplied fields change. While it distinguishes itself among many 'update_*' siblings by the specific resource, it does not contrast directly with similar tools, but the specificity is sufficient.

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 advises 'Use this to update an existing Directory records (only the supplied fields are changed),' which clearly indicates when to invoke the tool. It does not provide when-not-to-use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand its application.

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