update_partner

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a solid job: it notes the photos remain reachable either way, the operation only applies to shared-with-me partners, and the setting is persisted server-side. It stops short of discussing permissions or error behavior, but the key behavioural traits are 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose in the first sentence, precondition in the second, side-effect note, then a clean Args list. No filler; every line adds information.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters and no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description covers the return value ('JSON with the updated partner entry'), the precondition, and the parameter semantics, so an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only documentation for both parameters. It fully explains user_id ('the partner whose setting changes') and in_timeline ('True to mix their photos into the timeline, false to keep them separate'), adding meaning the schema lacks.

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 states a specific action — toggling whether a partner's photos appear in the main timeline — and clarifies that the photos remain accessible. It clearly differentiates this from partner management siblings like create_partner/remove_partner by focusing on the timeline visibility flag.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Only works on a partner who shares their library with this account (someone in shared_with_me).' It implies the tool is for adjusting visibility rather than membership, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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