update_station

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It never states that only station_id is required (i.e. partial update), whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, or what happens on invalid station_id. The field list is all it offers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence, so it is not bloated, but the parenthetical is effectively a copy of the schema's property list and contributes little new information. Efficient in form, thin in value.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical operational detail: which fields are optional, whether this is a partial or full replacement update, and what the response contains. The schema covers names but not semantics.

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 every parameter including the genres maxItems=3 constraint and nullable social fields. The description merely repeats the field names, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (station information) and enumerates the mutable fields, which is enough to distinguish it from get_station/list_stations/activate_station. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or scope boundary, but the purpose 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus update_station_user_role, update_schedule, or other mutating siblings. No mention of prerequisites such as ownership or permissions. The agent must infer all context.

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