Update a warranty claim

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

Annotations already declare safe-read=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-update semantics ("Fields left out stay as they are") and a side effect not in the schema — closing a claim stamps today's date unless resolvedOn is supplied.

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?

Three short sentences ordered well: what changes, when to use it, then the non-obvious dating rule. Tight overall, though the field list ("what it cost (cents), the claim number") is a partial restatement of what the schema already names.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the update semantics, and the one hidden side effect; remaining field meanings sit in a fully-covered schema. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description does add one piece of meaning the schema lacks — the status/resolvedOn defaulting interaction — but it omits notes, problem, and filedOn and mostly restates field meanings already in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Changes a warranty claim") and enumerates the mutable fields: status, resolution, cost, claim number. An agent can tell this apart from file_warranty_claim from the name plus the field list, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

"Use it when the person hears back about a claim" gives a concrete trigger condition, and "the claim's id is in get_item" routes the agent to the right source for the required parameter. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., file_warranty_claim for new claims) is provided.

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