Update Rir

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

The description adds PATCH semantics and default return format beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency, so the description complements with the PATCH detail and output format choice.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical information.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description states return value options (Markdown or JSON) and provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. Could mention response format more explicitly for chaining.

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 50%. The description mentions id as required and instructs to provide only fields to change, but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what schema provides. This is adequate given schema has some 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing rir'), the resource (rir), and the method (PATCH semantics). It distinguishes this from sibling create/delete tools by specifying it's an update operation.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: supply the numeric id and only fields to change; omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives but the instruction is sufficient for correct use.

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