update_association_tenant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('update') but does not explain partial vs. full replacement, validation behavior, auth requirements, or response semantics. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 sentence, but it merely restates the tool name with 'an existing', adding no informational value. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; every word is redundant with the name and title.

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?

The tool involves a required nested object parameter and has no annotations, yet the description is minimal. There is no information about what tenant_data should look like, how tenant_id is used, or what the output schema contains. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all. 'tenant_data' is defined only as an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true), leaving agents to guess required fields and structure. No parameter meanings are clarified beyond the bare names.

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 'Update an existing association tenant' clearly specifies the verb (update), resource (association tenant), and scope (existing), distinguishing it from create and list sibling tools. It uniquely identifies the operation without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusion criteria are given. The description does not indicate required existence checks or relationships to other tenant operations.

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