Update User Permission

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it returns the modified object on success and that only supplied fields are changed (partial update). It does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior when required fields are missing. The added context is useful but minimal beyond 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 contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Field Productivity records') and includes API endpoint details that may not be essential for an AI agent. It could be more concise without losing key information. Front-loaded with the purpose, but overall word count could be reduced.

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 fails to clarify that 'id' is likely required for updating a specific record, even though it's not marked as required in the schema. It does not mention error conditions, prerequisites, or the structure of the returned object beyond 'modified object'. Given the absence of an output schema and the need to identify which record to update, this is a notable gap.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description only reiterates that company_id is required, adding no new semantic information beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'updating a Company Managed Equipment User Permission' and specifies the action as 'update' with the verb 'update'. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_all_company_managed_equipment_user_permissions'. However, the phrase 'Field Productivity records' (plural) is slightly ambiguous as it may imply updating multiple records when actually a single record is updated.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records' and notes 'only the supplied fields are changed', which gives basic guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like the list tool for checking existing records. No exclusions or context for when to choose this over other update tools.

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