update_guest_address

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint: false, indicating the operation is not destructive. The description adds 'Update', which aligns with mutation but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether the change is reversible, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., updating related records). Given minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the burden but provides insufficient detail.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward update operation, though it could benefit from a slightly expanded structure to cover key behavioral aspects.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, permission requirements, or constraints on which fields can be updated simultaneously. The tool is simple, but critical context for correct usage is missing.

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?

Only 2 of 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (country_code and guest_group_id), resulting in 29% coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the meaning of address fields or their optionality. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to guess the role of parameters like city, address1, etc.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a guest group's mailing address'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_event' or 'update_faq', which also update other resources, but the resource specificity is sufficient.

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 when to update an address versus creating a new group or using a different update tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context on its own.

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