Update Vendor

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

The description explicitly mentions 'PATCH semantics' and 'Only the provided fields will be changed', adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations include idempotentHint=true, confirming idempotency, and description aligns. No contradictions.

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 very concise: two English sentences covering core semantics and an example, plus a Spanish translation. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Update an existing vendor using PATCH semantics'). No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the update behavior and provides an example. Minor missing details (e.g., error responses) are acceptable given the schema.

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 schema coverage at 100%, the schema already describes all 6 parameters. The description adds value by providing an example with specific fields (id, email, phone), demonstrating usage pattern beyond schema 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 specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'vendor', highlights 'PATCH semantics' meaning partial updates, and provides an example with id, email, phone. This clearly distinguishes it from create and delete vendor tools.

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?

The description states that only provided fields are changed, implying use for partial updates. It offers a concrete example but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for selection among sibling tools.

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