Update Notable (catalog write)

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the operation mutates data, requires superuser privileges and an API key, rejects unknown fields, forbids create/delete, stamps last_updated_via=mcp, and costs $0.10. This gives an agent a clear behavioral and side-effect profile without contradicting 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?

The description is dense but well-ordered: mutation, scope, auth, operation type, allowed fields, validation behavior, side effect, and cost. Every clause adds decision-relevant information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool's 15 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the critical invocation details: superuser-only access, API key requirement, slug-based patching, allowed field set, unknown-field rejection, no create/delete, and the last_updated_via stamp. An agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 27%, the description compensates by enumerating the exact patchable fields (bio, about, occupation, birth_place, birth_date, etc.) and by stating that unknown fields are rejected. It does not explain every field's meaning, but most names are self-descriptive, and schema descriptions cover birth_date and idempotency keys.

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 opens with 'MUTATES public notable_people', a specific verb and resource, then clarifies the operation is a patch by slug. It also excludes create/delete, which distinguishes this write tool from read-only notable siblings and from creation/deletion tools.

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 implies use for patching an existing notable person by slug and restricts to superusers, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to choose this tool over notable_search, notable_profile, or create_person. 'No create/delete' is an exclusion, yet no positive routing guidance is given.

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