update_poi

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is largely covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — omitted fields are left unchanged (patch semantics) — but says nothing about permissions, whether the update is reversible, or what destructiveHint actually means in this context.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the invocation guidance second. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 15-parameter mutation with 7% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin — an agent must guess field formats and cannot tell what a successful or failed update returns. Annotations help, but the parameter surface is essentially undocumented.

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 only 7%: of 15 parameters, just poi_entity_id is documented ('POI ID from list_pois'). The description's patch note applies generically but clarifies nothing about the 14 undocumented fields (e.g., format for latitude/longitude, country_code, display_order), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (point-of-interest), which cleanly separates it from list_pois, add_poi, and remove_poi. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those siblings, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Provide only the fields you want to change' gives usable guidance on how to invoke it as a partial update rather than a full replace. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over add_poi/remove_poi, no prerequisite (the POI must already exist), and no exclusions.

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