update_individual

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing partial-update semantics: 'Only supplied fields change,' which tells the agent unsupplied fields are preserved. It stops short of stating error behavior or whether the id must already exist.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the partial-update rule. Every word earns its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still leaves the 60% undocumented parameters (sex value format, given/surname semantics, file scope) largely to inference, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 only 40%: id and file are documented in the schema, while sex, given and surname have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by naming the three editable fields, but adds no format, valid-value, or null-handling detail for them. Baseline 3 given the moderate coverage gap.

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 (Change) plus the exact resource and target fields (an individual's given name, surname and/or sex). The verb 'Change' implicitly separates it from siblings like add_individual and remove_individual, though no sibling is 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the record must exist), and never names alternatives such as add_individual or set_event. 'Only supplied fields change' is a behavioral note, not routing guidance.

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