Update Inspection Type

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only or destructive, and the description confirms it updates and returns the modified object. It adds context about partial updates but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements or rate limits. The description does not contradict the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus metadata like required parameters and API path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (required parameters already in schema), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, usage (partial update), required parameters, and return value. It could be improved by explicitly noting optional parameters, but it remains sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists required parameters and the endpoint format but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that provided fields are changed, which is helpful but not novel.

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 that the tool updates an Inspection Type for a specified Company, using a specific verb and resource. However, it inconsistently refers to 'Inspections' in the second sentence, which may cause minor confusion. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create or delete operations for inspection types.

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 using the tool to update existing Inspections and notes that only supplied fields are changed, which implies a partial update. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving the user to infer from the list of siblings.

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