Update IT Glue Password

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions the return value format but doesn't explain what happens with partial updates, validation rules, or permission requirements. With good annotation coverage, the description provides some but not rich additional behavioral insight.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter listing and return information. However, the parameter list is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema, and the 'Args:' section could be more concise or integrated better with the main description.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context but lacks depth. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs full updates), error handling, permission requirements, or how this tool relates to sibling operations. The return format is mentioned, but without an output schema, more detail on response structure would be helpful.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., explaining relationships between fields, update semantics, or special constraints). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing password entry in IT Glue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_create_password' (create) and 'itglue_get_password' (read). It specifies the exact type of resource being modified.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'itglue_create_password' or 'itglue_get_password'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for updating versus creating new entries.

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