update_institution

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'updates' an institution, which implies a write operation, but does not explain the effect of omitting optional fields (title, currency_code), whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any permission or idempotency considerations. This falls short of the transparency expected 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 short sentence, which is maximally concise with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose immediately and is easy to parse. While it lacks depth, conciseness is about efficiency, not completeness, and this description uses exactly the words needed to state the core action.

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 relatively simple parameter set but the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage context. It does not specify when to use this over create/delete, what the update semantics are (e.g., partial vs. full), or what the return value looks like. The description leaves the agent with only the schema and tool name, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter (id, title, currency_code) having a text description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or constraints, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a PocketSmith institution'), making the primary purpose evident. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_institution, get_institution, and delete_institution, though it does not enumerate the specific fields that can be updated. This is slightly less informative than an example like 'Update shared drive settings including name, color, and restrictions,' but still 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios such as modifying an institution's title or currency code, nor does it exclude cases where a different tool (e.g., create_institution) might be more appropriate. Sibling tools are listed externally, but the description itself offers no comparative or contextual usage cues.

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