Update requester

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's one real contribution is patch semantics — "only the supplied fields change" — which is not derivable from the annotations and matters for a nested-object update. It says nothing about validation errors, permission requirements, or what happens with unknown field names.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the partial-update rule front-loaded right after the verb. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values need no explanation. However, for a mutation on a nested object with openWorldHint=true, the description omits error behavior and permission context an agent would want before invoking.

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 100%; the requester_fields description already enumerates every allowed field. The description adds nothing about requester_id format or how nested custom_fields should be passed. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a requester") and adds the scope constraint that only supplied fields change. It is distinguishable from sibling mutators like update_agent or update_group by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus create_requester, deactivate_requester, or convert_requester_to_agent, and no prerequisites such as whether the requester must exist or which permissions are needed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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