Updates A Company Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration

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

The description mentions a partial update (PATCH) and that the modified object is returned. It does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to omitted fields. The annotation openWorldHint=true contradicts the schema's additionalProperties: false, which is not addressed in the description. This lack of clarity reduces confidence.

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 two sentences and includes essential details like the endpoint and required parameters. However, it contains a redundant phrase and a typo ('Inspections'), making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 lack of an output schema and the complexity of nested objects (observation, photo), the description should explain the response structure or behavior more thoroughly. It only states the function returns the modified object. Missing guidance on error handling, field constraints, or dependencies with sibling tools (e.g., creating the item first). The typo further undermines completeness.

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. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The note about 'only supplied fields are changed' is useful but already implied by PATCH semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates an existing 'Company Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration'. It specifies that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object. However, it contains a typo ('Inspections' instead of 'Inspection') and is slightly redundant with the title, so it loses a point for clarity.

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 indicates the tool is for updating an existing configuration and lists required parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The inclusion of the API endpoint and version is helpful, but the guidance is minimal.

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