mhlb_update_student

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the operation is a write, it replaces the entire record (omitted fields are lost), and the request shape is unverified (derived from compiled API client) requiring a dry-run preview before confirming. This goes well beyond annotations and fully informs the agent of the operational risks and requirements.

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 dense but not verbose; it front-loads the main action, then the critical usage pattern, then the risk warning. Each sentence adds necessary information, and the structure is logical. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., merging the unverified note), but it remains efficient for an agent.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, but the description covers everything an agent needs: the prerequisite call, the replacement behavior, the confirmation requirement, the dry-run preview, and the unverified nature. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear reference to preview dry-run, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 100%: both parameters have clear descriptions. The 'student' parameter is explained as the model from the form tools with edits applied, and 'confirm' is explained with its gating behavior. The tool description reinforces this by restating the pattern and the replacement consequence, adding value beyond the schema alone. Since the schema already covers meaning well, a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a student profile'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the prerequisite form tools (mhlb_get_student_form / mhlb_new_student_form) and matching the pattern of other update tools like mhlb_update_order. An agent can immediately understand the tool's role.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call mhlb_get_student_form first and send that model back with edits, emphasizing whole-record replacement. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., mhlb_create_student for new records), but the prerequisite and critical warning make the intended usage clear. The guidance is highly directive and actionable, though a brief mention of when not to use it (e.g., for creation) would push it to a 5.

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