rm_update_holiday

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only update that is not destructive, and the description merely restates 'Update' with no additional behavioral information. It does not disclose whether fields are patched individually, whether null values clear fields, or any side effects. Since no annotations are contradicted, this is not scored as a contradiction but it adds nothing beyond them.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. A stronger tool definition would front-load purpose and include field or usage context.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits update semantics, optional-field behavior, and routing guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but behavioral and parameter context remain 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 0% and the description does not mention holiday_id, date, name, or end_date. The schema's titles and types provide minimal information, but the description adds no semantics such as which fields are updatable or how optional null values behave. This is a significant gap for a four-parameter mutation tool.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ('Update a holiday'), providing no detail beyond the resource and action. It does not differentiate from rm_create_holiday or rm_delete_holiday except by the verb, which is already present in the name. This is a tautological definition rather than a useful purpose statement.

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 instead of alternatives like rm_create_holiday or rm_delete_holiday. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The only implied usage context comes from the tool name itself.

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