cigchat_subscriber_update

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

The description discloses the HTTP method and path (PUT /subscriber/update) and an authorization requirement (Manage Flow scope), providing some behavioral context. However, it does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update, required user_ns) or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and including only a necessary scope note. Every word is useful, with no redundancy.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits required parameters, parameter semantics, response behavior, and how this tool differs from the many subscriber-related siblings.

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?

The description adds no parameter information, and the input schema only describes 'image' (13% coverage). With 8 parameters, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Update subscriber data' with an explicit endpoint. However, it does not specify the nature of the data (e.g., profile fields vs custom fields) or distinguish itself from many sibling update tools like cigchat_subscriber_set_user_field.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the required scope, not any use-case context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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