Set participant properties

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it calls a specific LimeSurvey method and handles authentication, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., whether it can update multiple fields atomically).

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential authentication guidance.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Parameters are well-covered in the schema. The description adequately explains participant matching and authentication, though it could briefly mention that data properties are flexible (reflected by openWorldHint).

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query parameter's matching purpose but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('update') and resource ('participant'), and clarifies matching by 'token or token-table ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_participant_properties (read) or add_participants (create).

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: authentication uses the configured service account, and advises not to provide a session key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for bulk updates via add_participants).

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