update_person

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value by explaining WHAT is preserved: the old primary name becomes an 'Also Known As' rather than being discarded, along with the reason (preserving the record/document link). This meaningfully clarifies the 'destructive' hint. It does not say whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, which would complete the mutation contract.

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 action and affected fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the preservation rationale and the sibling routing tip. The middle explanation is slightly verbose but earns its place by justifying the destructive behavior.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key side effect, and the main alternative, with safety profile carried by annotations. What is missing is the partial-update contract (are omitted fields left untouched?) and any permission/prerequisite note.

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 person, name, gender, and private in detail. The description enumerates the three editable attributes, which lightly reinforces the schema but adds no format, default-null, or partial-update semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Edit) plus the exact resource and mutable fields (gender, primary name, privacy flag), so an agent immediately knows the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_alternate_name, which handles a different case.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use add_alternate_name when you want to add a name without replacing the primary one. That is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative. It does not address the overlap with the sibling set_private, which also appears to touch the privacy flag, leaving one ambiguity unresolved.

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