patch-crm-object-schemas-v3-schemas-objtype_objtype

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', giving no information about effects, partial-update semantics, immutability constraints, permissions, or side effects. This is inadequate 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 extremely sparse at only three words. While concise, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool, providing almost no informational value. This is not efficient conciseness but rather a failure to communicate.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description 'Update a schema' is wholly insufficient to understand what the tool does, how the path parameter works, what the payload controls, or what the outcome will be. It is a complex tool with a one-line tautology.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter context. The schema itself has descriptions for all parameters, some of which are meaningful (e.g., labels, requiredProperties), though others are generic like 'string parameter'.

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 'Update a schema' is a near-tautology that merely restates the action implied by the tool name and HTTP method. It does not specify which schema, what kind of update, or distinguish this from other schema-related tools like get or delete.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of related siblings. It is entirely silent on usage context.

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