boond_businessunits_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, and 'existing' indicates the target must already exist, but nothing is said about side effects, whether this is a partial or full replacement, permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the operation, yet offers no structured breakdown of behavior, parameters, or usage context.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not explain which fields are updatable, whether it replaces or patches, or what success looks like. An agent would have to rely entirely on parameter names and guesswork.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions nothing about the parameters (id, name, parentId, managerId), their requiredness, or their meaning. The agent gets no help understanding what each field does or how they relate to the update operation.

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 ('Update') and a specific resource ('business unit'), and the sibling list distinguishes it from boond_businessunits_search, _get, and _create. It lacks detail on what exactly can be updated, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ID), and no exclusions. The description merely names the operation without supporting the agent's decision to select it over boond_businessunits_create.

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