swapcard_upsert_exhibitors

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'create or update' without detailing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error handling. The mutating nature is implicit but other important aspects like whether it replaces or merges data are omitted.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of the schema (nested objects, arrays), the description is too brief. It does not mention that 'exhibitors' is an array, that it supports multiple records, or explain the structure of each exhibitor object. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with such a rich input schema.

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 schema provides field names but no descriptions. The description does not add any semantic meaning to parameters like 'clientId', 'membersIds', or 'socialNetworks'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining these fields.

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 tool's function: creating or updating exhibitors within an event. It uses a specific verb ('create or update') and identifies the resource ('exhibitors') and context ('in an event'), which distinguishes it from related tools like list or delete exhibitors.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_exhibitor or import_exhibitors. It does not mention that it handles bulk operations or that it serves as an upsert, leaving the user to infer its use case.

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