update_poi

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a key behavioral trait: it is a partial update where only specified fields are changed, implying omitted fields remain untouched. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the mutation semantics. It does not contradict 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a concise, valuable usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, this description is under-specified. It does not mention how to identify a POI (though the schema hints via poi_entity_id), what happens after update, or any return values/errors. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in all cases.

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% (only poi_entity_id has a description). The description does not compensate: it provides no parameter-specific details, no clarification of ambiguous names like display_order or google_place_id, and no guidance on required vs optional fields beyond the general 'fields you want to change.' With 15 parameters and minimal schema descriptions, the description should offer more.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a point-of-interest'), clearly stating the tool's action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update tools (e.g., update_vendor, update_page), but the resource name is sufficiently distinct. It lacks the explicit sibling comparison seen in top-tier descriptions, so it falls short of 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?

The phrase 'Provide only the fields you want to change' gives a clear instruction on how to invoke the tool (partial update) and implies it is used when modifying an existing POI. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like add_poi or remove_poi, nor does it state when-not-to-use this tool. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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