insurance_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether updates are partial or full, permissions required, side effects, or idempotency. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool with 15 parameters.

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 (4 words), which is good for front-loading, but for a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, it lacks necessary substance. It is not overly verbose but could benefit from one or two additional sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, error handling, or response format). The agent is left with many unknowns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as relationships between parameters (e.g., price_value must be paired with price_currency, already in schema). 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 insurance contract' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like insurance_create and insurance_show, but could be more specific about the scope of updates.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insurance_create for new contracts, show for viewing). There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions.

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