Update Property Damage

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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-destructive write. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (PATCH behavior) and returns the modified object on success, which is helpful but doesn't go beyond that (e.g., no mention of permissions or side effects).

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 very concise with four clear sentences. First sentence states purpose, second explains usage, third lists required params, fourth gives API reference. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the update behavior and API endpoint, but it doesn't explain the relationship to incidents or when to use this over other property damage tools. It's adequate but leaves out some context about prerequisites (e.g., incident must 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% with full parameter descriptions. The description mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but adds no new meaning beyond the existing 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 clearly states 'Updates the specified Property Damage record' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like 'update_incident', but the resource name is specific enough.

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?

While it says 'Use this to update an existing Incidents' (though possibly a typo for property damages) and mentions 'only the supplied fields are changed', it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_property_damage or destroy_property_damage.

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