brc_update_supplier

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-step confirmation behavior and the preflight mechanism. It explains the merged field update approach. However, it does not detail error handling, side effects, or required permissions, which slightly limits transparency 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 concise, with three sentences that communicate the purpose, workflow, and key caution. It is front-loaded with the main operation and uses clear, direct language without extraneous text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the preflight response and the need for user confirmation. It covers the essential agent workflow but could be more complete by noting expected response format or error scenarios. Still, it meets the agent's core needs.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds significant value by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's workflow, including the preflight draft and user confirmation requirement. This goes beyond the schema's description of confirmWrite as a boolean.

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 'Updates a BRC supplier using merged fields,' specifying the verb ('Updates'), resource ('BRC supplier'), and method ('merged fields'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like brc_create_supplier or brc_delete_supplier.

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 explicit step-by-step guidance: first call without confirmWrite true to get a preview, show the plain-English draft, then retry with confirmWrite true only after explicit user confirmation. It also clarifies that a preflight response is not confirmation, leaving no ambiguity.

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