Update Punch Item Assignment

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

Description notes partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and that it returns the modified object. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); description adds some context but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects like email sending.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and required parameters, plus API reference. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Adequately covers purpose and basic behavior, but lacks details on response structure (no output schema), prerequisite permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for parameters like send_emails and attachments. Description mainly repeats required params, adding limited additional value 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?

Clearly states 'Update single Punch Item Assignment' with specific verb and resource. Mentions it updates existing records and returns modified object, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_punch_item or update_punch_item_type.

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?

Provides usage context ('Use this to update an existing Punch List records') and lists required parameters. However, no guidance on when not to use (e.g., for creating new assignments) or alternatives.

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