Update or amend a contest

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the addition of pre-publication editing versus appending to a published contest is useful context. The description does not mention permissions, side effects, or response behavior, but it does add a meaningful behavioral distinction beyond 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core operational distinction in clear code-formatted terms. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not specify per-action required fields, how to identify the contest, or what happens after an update or amend. An agent would need to inspect the schema and still guess at request construction details.

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 only 20%, with `text` being the only property already described. The description adds meaning to `action` by explaining update vs. amend, but it does not explain `contest_id`, `name`, or `description`, nor does it state which parameters are required or valid for each action mode. This leaves too much ambiguity for the agent to construct correct requests.

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 specific verb and resource: `update` edits a contest before publication, `amend` appends an update to a published one. This clearly explains the two operations and maps them to the action enum, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this from sibling contest tools by clarifying what mutation it performs.

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 explicit conditions for choosing between the two actions: use `update` before publication and `amend` after publication. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the internal action guidance is clear and sufficient for a single-purpose mutation tool.

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