Update a contest (admin)

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

Annotations already establish mutation, idempotence, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the partial-update behavior and the admin-rights requirement, which are important operational details not derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action and field list are front-loaded, and the partial-update and permission notes each earn their place.

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 moderate-complexity update tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the action, target fields, permission requirement, and update semantics. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: 'Only the arguments you pass are changed' clarifies how the nullable parameters and null defaults behave, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This justifies moving above baseline.

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 verb-resource pair ('Update a contest's settings') and enumerates the exact fields involved, distinguishing it clearly from read (get_contest), delete (delete_contest), and permission (set_contest_permission) siblings. An agent can select this tool with confidence.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for modifying contest settings, requires contest administration rights, and is explicitly partial-update ('Only the arguments you pass are changed'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisites and semantics are sufficiently clear for correct selection.

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