Update EULA

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

The annotations are all false, giving limited safety info (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds that existing EULA data can be changed and that the EULA ID must already exist, but it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or whether territory IDs replace or append, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the useful pointer to get-eula in the second sentence. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy.

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?

While the schema covers parameter meanings, the description lacks an explanation of the partial-update semantics (e.g., what happens to agreementText when omitted) and does not describe the return value, which is absent from the output schema. For a simple mutation tool, this leaves a small but noticeable gap.

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%, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'Omit to keep current' for territoryIds). The description's mention of 'text and/or territories' reinforces the optional parameters but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses the verb 'Update' with the resource 'app EULA' and specifies the scope 'text and/or territories', clearly distinguishing this tool from read-oriented siblings like get-eula and from other update tools targeting different resources. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 an explicit prerequisite by instructing to get the EULA ID from get-eula, which orients the agent to the correct data flow. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for related resources like beta license agreements, so it only partially covers usage guidance.

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