update_correspondent

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

The description adds PATCH partial-update behavior ('only fields you supply are changed'), which is beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also clarifies the scope to a single correspondent. No negative side effects are disclosed, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the action and semantics, the second provides the crucial alternative. Information is front-loaded and 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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete: it states the target, editable fields, PATCH behavior, and an important edge case (document assignment). No output schema exists, so not documenting return values is acceptable. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has descriptions only for is_insensitive and matching_algorithm (40% coverage). The description compensates by enumerating all editable fields and giving extra meaning for 'match' as 'matching pattern'. It also clarifies that id is not an editable field (only a resource identifier). This adds value beyond 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 operation: 'Update fields on ONE correspondent'. It specifies the PATCH semantics and lists the four editable fields, which unambiguously distinguishes it from bulk operations like edit_correspondents_bulk and from create/delete tools.

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 explicitly provides an exclusion and alternative: 'To assign this correspondent to documents, use edit_documents_bulk with method set_correspondent or update_document instead.' This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and points to the correct sibling tool.

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