update_vendor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a mutation ('update') but does not mention whether the update is partial or full replacement, how vendor_data is handled, whether fields are validated, or any permission or side-effect details. This is a significant transparency gap 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—a single sentence with no fluff—but it under-specifies the tool. While not wasteful, it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, as it omits essential usage details that an agent needs.

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 the tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the return format, what constitutes a successful update, or any error conditions. The presence of sibling tools also suggests a need for more context to disambiguate from similar update operations, which is absent.

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 description adds no explanation of the two parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and vendor_data is an arbitrary object with additionalProperties true, yet the description does not clarify what fields it accepts, how it merges, or the meaning of the vendor_id. The param names are the only hint, which is insufficient.

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 the tool's function: 'Update an existing vendor,' which specifies the verb (update) and resource (vendor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor, create_vendor, and list_vendors, though it does not elaborate on which vendor attributes can be changed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the verb 'update,' and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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