update_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it updates a program but doesn't mention what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned in parameters, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise for what it does cover, though it could be more helpful with additional context.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. The description should provide more context about what this update operation entails beyond the basic statement of purpose.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Actualiza un programa de viajes en LumbreTravel' which translates to 'Updates a travel program in LumbreTravel'. This clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (travel program), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_activities, update_agency, etc. It's a generic update statement without specifying what distinguishes updating a program from other update operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools including other update operations and related tools like create_program, delete_program, reactivate_program, and get_program, but the description doesn't mention any of these or provide context about when this specific update operation is appropriate.

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