service_principals_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description only confirms it's a write operation but adds no additional behavioral context such as whether it replaces all fields, requires specific privileges, or has any side effects. With annotations present, the description should still clarify the full replacement semantics.

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, which is concise, but it omits important context (e.g., the need to provide a complete SCIM object). It is not front-loaded with the most critical detail (full replacement vs partial update).

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 presence of a nested 'body' parameter and an output schema, the description should explain that the body must contain the entire SCIM service principal representation (full replacement). It is too minimal and leaves ambiguity about the required format and the effect of the PUT operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Replace'), the resource ('a SCIM service principal'), and the HTTP method ('via PUT'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create, delete, get, list, and especially patch.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'service_principals_patch'. The description does not indicate that this performs a full replacement (PUT) as opposed to a partial update (PATCH), leaving the agent without crucial context for correct usage.

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