update_person

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate idempotent, non-destructive mutation), the description adds that only provided fields are modified, clarifying partial update behavior. However, it does not describe error scenarios or return values.

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 unnecessary words. Every word is informative, making it highly efficient.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and partial update behavior but omits return value or success/failure indicators. This leaves the agent guessing about the response, reducing completeness.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value. The description provides general context but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'an existing person', specifying that only provided fields are modified. This distinguishes it from create, delete, or other actions on persons, and among sibling update tools, the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies use for partial updates to an existing person but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like create_person or delete_person. No exclusions or context are given.

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