update_city

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It implies mutation but never says whether missing fields are left untouched or cleared, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or whether reassigning country_id has side effects on embeddings or reports.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose but omits partial-update behavior, side effects, and authorization requirements. It is minimally adequate to select the tool but not complete enough to call it confidently.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'attributes, country, or thematic tags' just paraphrases name/description, country_id, and themes without adding format, constraint, or partial-update semantics. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing city') and enumerates the mutable surface (attributes, country, thematic tags), which matches the schema fields. It does not distinguish itself from update_country or update_continent, but the resource noun alone makes the target entity 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the city must already exist and be identified by id), and no mention of alternatives such as create_city for new records or update_country for reassigning many cities at once. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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