update_postal_code_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. It does not state whether unspecified optional fields are left unchanged or reset, whether specific permissions are required, or what happens upon update. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. It does not add meaningful value beyond the tool name, so while it has no fluff, it also lacks substance.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining update semantics, but it does not. It fails to mention behavior like partial vs full updates, return values, or error conditions. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described (e.g., 'If true, inclusion target; if false, exclusion target'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already handles this dimension, so 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 'Update an existing postal code target' clearly states the action (update) and resource (postal code target), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no additional scope or distinction from siblings like create_postal_code_target. It does not specify what aspects can be updated or how it differs from other update tools.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_postal_code_target or delete_postal_code_target. The verb 'update' implies use for modifying existing targets, but there is no clear context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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