update_vendor

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds 'existing' qualifier and purpose but does not detail behavioral traits like partial vs full update, idempotency, or return value. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value, including the usage context.

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 rich schema (11 params, nested objects) and no output schema, description covers purpose and usage adequately. Could mention behavior when optional params are omitted (likely unchanged) but not essential.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 'update an existing vendor contact'. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing vendor contact' and specifies use for correcting/enriching vendor details needed for expense/bill/payment workflows. Differentiates from sibling create_vendor and get_vendor.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to correct or enrich vendor details' and ties to specific workflows (expenses, bills, vendor-payments). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like create_vendor, but context is clear.

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