Update Department

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating mutation but not destruction. The description adds value by specifying 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and 'returns the modified object on success'. This clarifies the update behavior beyond basic annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise at three sentences plus a list of required parameters and endpoint info. It front-loads the purpose and update behavior. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Update Department' repeats the title), and the API info could be slightly trimmed.

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') and partial update semantics. It covers the key aspects for a simple update tool. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the department does not exist, which would enhance completeness.

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 mentions required parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The schema already describes each parameter, so the description provides limited additional semantic value.

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 'Update Department' with the verb 'update' and resource 'Directory records'. It explains that it updates an existing record and only changes supplied fields, which distinguishes it from create or delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_department' or 'delete_department', though the verb implies it.

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 lists required parameters (id, company_id, department) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or deleting departments. No when-not or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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