Update Testimonial

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral insight: hiding from the public site via published=false and the patch-like semantics of sending only changed fields. No contradiction.

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, immediately front-loaded with the operation, then the update pattern, then a key usage caveat. No filler.

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?

Although the tool has 12 parameters, the schema describes most of them. The description gives essential missing context: how to identify a testimonial, partial update behavior, and the featured/published effect. It is adequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description clarifies the 'id' parameter to accept either id or slug, and the 'published' parameter's effect on public visibility. This adds meaning beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 states the action: 'Update a testimonial by id or slug.' It specifies the resource (testimonial) and the identifier (id or slug), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_testimonial or delete_testimonial.

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 provides clear usage context: partial updates ('Send only the fields to change') and a specific action ('Set published to false to hide it from the public site'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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