update_country

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether this is a partial patch (unspecified fields preserved) or a full replacement, whether changes are reversible, what permissions or preconditions apply, or what happens when the id does not exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage these are material omissions.

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 the verb first and no filler; it is appropriately sized for a simple update endpoint. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain update semantics, failure modes, and side effects. The description covers only which fields can change, leaving the agent without enough information to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 every parameter including the required id and continent_id reassignment is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's phrase "continent" and "thematic tags" loosely echoes continent_id and themes but adds no semantics such as whether omitted fields are cleared or left untouched.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing country") and enumerates the kinds of fields affected: attributes, continent, and thematic tags. That maps cleanly onto the schema's name/description, continent_id, and themes, and the resource name separates it from update_city and update_continent. It stops short of any differentiation in behavior from those siblings.

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?

"Existing country" implies the record must already exist and the required id reinforces that, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no pointer to create_country for new records, and no note about when to prefer update_continent for continent-level changes. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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