update_license

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Update fields'. It does not explain what gets destroyed, whether a full replace occurs, or any permission/rate limit requirements. The description does not leverage annotations to enrich understanding.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but provides no additional details. While there is no fluff, it is too minimal to be fully informative.

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 tool has nested objects, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, side effects, required fields beyond license_id, and usage context. The description does not meet the needs of a mutation tool with complex parameters.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (license_id, value, extra_fields). Without any additional meaning, the agent must infer from the schema alone, which lacks semantics. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Planhat license', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_license, delete_license, and get_license. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

While no explicit when-not or alternative cues are given, the context of sibling tools (create, delete, get, list) implies that this tool is for modifying an existing license. The description could be improved by stating when to use it versus create or delete, but the intent is clear.

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