icu_update_gear

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: fields not passed are left untouched, which is what makes the null-defaulted optional parameters safe. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens on an unknown gear_id.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the update-semantics caveat immediately after.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the one thing an agent most needs to call it correctly: the partial-update contract. Only edge-case behavior (invalid gear_id, cross-athlete access for coaches) is unaddressed.

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% so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by clarifying the partial-update contract — omitted/null fields are not sent, so the agent knows it should not pass nulls to clear values. It still does not explain the retire/un-retire semantics of 'active' (that lives in 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing gear item'), making the operation unambiguous and distinguishable by name from icu_create_gear and icu_delete_gear. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings inside the description text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_gear or delete_gear. The second sentence is behavioral (partial-update semantics), not usage routing.

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