TeachersUpdate

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description's 'Update' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already imply, such as whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The agent is left without meaningful behavioral guidance.

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 a single terse sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource clearly. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for a tool with 13 parameters and complex update semantics.

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 13 optional-looking parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too thin to provide complete operational context. It does not clarify that teacherId is likely required for identifying the teacher, nor does it explain merge versus replace behavior or success/failure semantics. The schema helps with parameter meanings but not with the broader calling context.

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?

The input schema documents all 13 parameters with descriptions and enums, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, which meets the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating an existing teacher. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like TeachersCreate, TeachersDelete, and TeachersGetList. It is unambiguous, though it gives no detail on which aspects of the teacher can be updated.

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 such as TeachersCreate or TeachersGetList. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues, so an agent must infer proper usage from the name and schema alone.

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