update_prospect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics, uniqueness conflicts, the no-contact-channel constraint, and the side effect that changing email resets its deliverability verdict and queues a background re-check. These details go well beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause delivers useful information—constraints, conflict behavior, side effects, and explicit alternatives. There is no filler or wasted wording.

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 complex partial-update tool with a nested patch object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers error states, uniqueness rules, side effects, null-clear behavior via the schema, and sibling-tool routing. An agent can confidently select and invoke it.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially around conflict behavior and email reset side effects. The schema itself already documents omit/null patch semantics, so the description need not repeat every field; it compensates for the 50% schema coverage with the most critical behavioral constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Partial-update a tenant prospect's fields.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming update_prospect_status, set_prospect_priority, and set_prospect_do_not_contact for related but separate concerns.

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?

It explicitly says when to use alternative tools: 'Per-project status via update_prospect_status, priority via set_prospect_priority, DNC via set_prospect_do_not_contact.' It also communicates invalid-patch conditions through UNPROCESSABLE and CONFLICT error semantics, helping the agent decide whether the tool is appropriate.

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