update_people_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses little beyond the PUT method and path: it does not describe whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten, whether nested email/phone/address arrays replace the full set, or any required permissions. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence conveys the operation and endpoint without wasted words. It is well-structured but terse to the point of omitting behavioral guidance.

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 update with nested object arrays and no output schema or annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. The rich schema mitigates only parameter meaning, not usage context, effects on existing data, or return expectations.

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 schema already documents all parameters in detail (89% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Update details of a specific relationship' with the PUT /peopleRelationships/{id} endpoint. It is identifiable as an update operation against one relationship, though it does not explicitly contrast with create/get/list siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given. Although the verb 'Update' implies modification of an existing resource, the description does not mention that it requires an existing relationship id or that create_people_relationship should be used for new relationships.

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