update_vendor

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

The description states 'update' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what the annotations (destructiveHint: false) already convey. It omits details on partial vs full updates, side effects, or required permissions.

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 very concise (5 words), but this brevity sacrifices valuable context. It is front-loaded but lacks essential details, making it adequate but not well-structured for decision-making.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, partial update behavior, or how it differs from similar update tools among the 70+ siblings.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage (only uuid and event_date have descriptions), the description should compensate by clarifying parameter semantics, but it does not. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types in the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a booked vendor's details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_vendor and remove_vendor. However, the term 'booked' is somewhat specialized and may not be universally understood.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_vendor or other update_* tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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