update_vendor

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, which offers minimal safety context. The description adds no behavioral information beyond 'update', such as whether changes are partial or full, whether existing details are overwritten, or what happens if the vendor is not booked.

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, concise sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity: seven parameters, low schema coverage, and no usage guidance mean a somewhat longer description would be more appropriate.

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 the low schema coverage, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool. Critical parameter semantics, behavioral side effects, and guidance on distinguishing from add_vendor/remove_vendor are 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?

Schema description coverage is low at 29%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the seven parameters. Only uuid and event_date have schema descriptions; city, name, email, price_cents, and state_province are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('a booked vendor's details'), so an agent can tell this is a modification operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_vendor, remove_vendor, list_vendors, or search_vendors; the distinction is only implicit through the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites like the vendor needing to already exist or be booked, no exclusions, and no pointer to add_vendor or list_vendors for related workflows.

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