update_service_principal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'update' without mentioning permissions, reversibility, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency 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 a single short sentence, so it is concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified; while it earns its place, it could carry more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 (a free-form data object, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks information about required fields, update semantics, and return behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The sp_data parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: true) with no guidance on fields or format, leaving the agent without critical information to construct a valid request.

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 identifies the action (update) and the target resource (existing service principal). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the service principal can be updated or how this differs from create/delete operations beyond the verb.

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 the sibling create_service_principal or delete_service_principal tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios for updating an existing service principal.

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