Update or retire gear

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' clarifies partial update semantics, and the retirement example shows a specific use case. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, zero redundant words. The key actions are front-loaded, the example is illustrative, and the partial-update note is placed last. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple tool with 4 flat parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior and the retirement workflow. It doesn't mention that id is required, but the schema clearly marks it required and explains its source. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 50% (id and retired documented; name and notes not). The description compensates by explaining that 'name' is for renaming and 'notes' for updating notes, and illustrates 'retired' with a dated example. It doesn't detail the id parameter, but the schema already says 'from list_gear', so the necessary meaning is covered.

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 specific actions ('Rename gear, change its notes, or retire it') with a clear resource (gear), and differentiates from create_gear by referencing it for adding a replacement. This distinguishes it from sibling create_gear without needing to open schemas.

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 a clear context for retirement (e.g., worn-out shoes) and points to create_gear for adding a new pair, implying a workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but since it's the only update tool for gear, the guidance is adequate for selecting it.

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