Updates A Project Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'updates' and 'returns the modified object' adds limited value. The description does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose and including only necessary details like required parameters and API reference. Every sentence earns its place 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the action, required params, and that it returns the modified object. It lacks details about the evidence configuration itself, which might require context from the API docs, but is sufficient for an update operation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and listing required parameters, though it does not elaborate on the optional observation and photo objects 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 clearly states it updates a specific Project Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration using the verb 'updates' and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the company-level counterpart or the show/list tools, leaving some ambiguity among siblings.

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 usage for updating existing inspections with partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed') and lists required parameters. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, though the context is implied.

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