updateCountry

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: PATCH semantics, the role of `_clear_fields`, and that the primary action is toggling `active`. This goes beyond the annotations without 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?

The description is concise: two clear sentences and one bullet. Every sentence adds value, and critical information (purpose, PATCH semantics, required param) is at the beginning. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and a simple update operation, the description covers the essential aspects: main use case, required parameter, PATCH behavior, and the `_clear_fields` feature. It could optionally mention what happens if the country doesn't exist or permissions needed, but the annotations and schema already imply some flexibility. Overall, it's adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is low (40%), but the description compensates by explaining the PATCH semantics and the special `_clear_fields` parameter in detail (including an example and reference to a rule). It also calls out `country_id` as required and mentions `active` toggling. The meaning of `country_code` and `country_name` is left to the schema, which already describes `country_code`.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a country record' with a specific focus on 'toggling `active` to enable/disable a country on the site'. The title 'Update a country (corrections / active toggle)' further clarifies the primary use cases. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools targeting other entities.

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 provides key usage guidance: it mentions 'Read-mostly - primary use is toggling `active`' and that 'Fields omitted are untouched (PATCH semantics - only send what you want to change)'. It also highlights the required parameter `country_id`. While it doesn't explicitly specify when not to use the tool or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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