Update Program

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description adds rich behavioral detail: partial update semantics, automatic nesting under 'program', company_id defaulting behavior, id resolution requirement, return value on success, and specific HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond what annotations encode.

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 denser than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, configuration defaults, prerequisites, return, errors, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a logical flow without 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, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers input semantics, defaults, error behavior, endpoint reference, and return value. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without supplemental docs.

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% with each parameter described, but the description elevates understanding by clarifying partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), explaining that fields are nested under 'program' in the payload, noting company_id's default source, and requiring id to resolve to an existing record. These are meaningful additions beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Update the specified Program,' a specific verb+resource phrasing that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_programs, show_program, create_program, and delete_program. The inclusion of the PATCH endpoint and company-scoped resource further reinforces purpose.

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 clear context: use it to update an existing Program, send only changed fields, resolve the id via the matching list tool first, and company_id falls back to the configured default. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use create_program for new records') or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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