Replace a technician's buddies

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The description adds important behavioral details: buddy IDs must be active technicians of same business and no self-buddy. No contradictions.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first line repeats the title but the second adds essential details. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient behavioral context including edge case (empty list) and constraints. It covers the essential information for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: clarifies that empty list clears buddies and imposes constraints (active technician, no self-buddy) that are not in the parameter descriptions.

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 the action 'Replace a technician's buddies' and explains it overwrites the buddy list. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools like replaceTechnicianLeads or replaceTechnicianServiceAreas.

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 description explains that an empty list clears all buddies, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools have distinct purposes making the guideline adequate.

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