update_demand_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether this is a partial update or full replacement, which fields are required beyond id, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what the response contains. This is a bare mutation statement with no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no filler. While under-specified, it is structurally efficient.

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?

This is a complex 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only a five-word statement. It omits usage context, behavioral semantics, and any practical guidance, making it inadequate for successful invocation.

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?

The schema provides full (100%) descriptions for all 16 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, the description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, such as which parameters are commonly updated together or how update behavior applies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (update) and resource (demand endpoint), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation. It doesn't elaborate on updatable fields or differentiate from sibling update tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_demand_endpoint, create_demand_endpoint, or delete_demand_endpoint. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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