Update Company Vendor Business Register

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's a mutation but not destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: changing a verified register's identifier nullifies verification_status and verified_at. It also clarifies it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. This adds significant context beyond 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 fairly concise, leading with the main purpose. It includes necessary caveats and return behavior. Minor redundancy: 'Update an existing Business Register' and 'Use this to update an existing Directory records' (possible typo). Otherwise, structure is good and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value ('returns the modified object on success'). It covers side effects, partial update semantics, and required parameters. It is suitable for an update operation, though it could mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if the register does not exist).

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 baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but adds minimal insight beyond the schema. It mentions that changing the identifier triggers side effects, which gives context for the 'identifier' parameter, but overall parameter descriptions in the schema already sufficiently describe each field.

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 action ('Update an existing Business Register') and the resource ('associated with a specified Vendor'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_company_vendor_business_register' by emphasizing that the register must already exist. The verb 'update' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: the register must already exist. It warns about side effects of changing the identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like the create counterpart. This is a minor gap.

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