PupilsUpdate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds no additional context about side effects, error behavior, partial-update semantics, or the requirement of pupilId for identification. No contradiction, but no value beyond annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and readable, though arguably too terse for a 16-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with 16 parameters, four enums, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, what the response looks like, or any constraints beyond the schema. The agent must rely entirely on schema details.

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 schema documents all 16 parameters in detail, including enums. The description itself doesn't mention parameters, but with full coverage the baseline is 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing pupil'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like PupilsCreate, PupilsDelete, and read-only getters. However, it doesn't enumerate which fields are updatable, so it is not maximally informative.

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 verb 'Update' implies its purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as PupilsCreate or PupilsDelete. No exclusion criteria or usage context is provided.

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