speechwire_update_judge_school

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the effect (replace team) and the return dict structure. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or if the team_id must exist (though it implies validation via 'get valid IDs'). The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return structure, and a hint about valid IDs. It could optionally mention error cases, but the return dict includes an error field.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by defining each parameter: 'judge_id : int' as the judge's ID and 'team_id : int' as the new team/school ID, with a reference to 'speechwire_list_teams' for valid IDs. This adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update a judge's school (team) affiliation', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'speechwire_get_judge_school' (read) and others that update different attributes (e.g., email).

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 explains that the tool 'replaces the team affiliation while preserving the judge's other values', giving context on side effects. It also directs users to 'speechwire_list_teams' for valid IDs, providing helpful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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