update_constituent

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description ('Update') aligns with these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether partial updates are supported or what happens to omitted fields. With annotations providing the key safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description should provide more context about behavior (e.g., partial update, return value, error handling). It lacks completeness, leaving the agent to guess important details.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings beyond 'core information'. Field names like 'constituent_type' and 'organization_name' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'id' could require explanation. The description fails to add value over the schema, which is sparse.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'constituent', with the scope 'core information'. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_constituent (create new) and delete_constituent (delete). However, 'core information' is vague; it doesn't explicitly enumerate the fields that can be updated, leading to some ambiguity.

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 implies use when you want to modify an existing constituent's data, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Among sibling tools, there is no other tool for updating constituent core info, so the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit context (e.g., prerequisites like existence of constituent).

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