Modify classification system

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('Returns {system}'), valuable since no output schema exists, but does not explain the destructive aspect (e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared, whether the rename is reversible) or authorization needs.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the mutation target and field list come first, the return value second. Efficient and easy to scan, though extremely terse given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with 43% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the modifiable fields and the return shape, which is the minimum viable. It leaves gaps on the required 'system' identifier semantics, undoName, and what happens to fields not supplied.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names five of the seven parameters (name, editionVersion, description, source, editionDate) as mutable fields, which maps them usefully, but omits the required 'system' identifier and 'undoName', and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

States a specific verb ('Changes') plus the exact resource (a classification system) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, editionVersion, description, source, editionDate), which clearly separates it from create_classification_system and delete_classification_systems. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the inverse operation, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 on when to use this versus create_classification_system, delete_classification_systems, or import_classifications_xml, and no prerequisites (e.g. system must already exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and field list.

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