boond_agencies_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update an existing agency' and does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update, what fields are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what response to expect. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for the behavioral information an agent needs.

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 operation mutates data and there are no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, side effects, or any prerequisites. For a low-complexity flat schema this is still a notable omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level meaning. The field names (id, city, name, address, country) are self-explanatory, yet the description does not clarify which fields are updated, whether they are optional, or how the id selects the target agency.

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 clearly states a verb ('Update') and a resource ('an existing agency'), and the word 'existing' weakly distinguishes it from the create tool. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and does not differentiate from the broader CRUD family beyond the update action.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus boond_agencies_create, boond_agencies_search, or boond_agencies_get. The phrase 'existing' implies use on already-created agencies, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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