update_scheme

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only provided fields are updated (partial update behavior), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens if the ID does not exist, error handling, authorization needs, or whether the update is destructive. The partial update detail is useful but leaves gaps.

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 very concise: two sentences and a short args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The reference to create_scheme for other params is efficient, though it assumes the agent will look up that tool. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for a tool with many parameters.

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 complexity (32 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain validation, required parameters beyond id, or the response format (though output schema exists). The reference to create_scheme helps but does not fully cover the semantics of all fields or 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'id' parameter and refers to create_scheme for others, without specifying the meaning of any field (e.g., 'code', 'name'). The schema titles provide some semantics, but the description adds minimal value. For 32 parameters, this 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'government scheme record by ID'. It also adds the important constraint 'Pass only fields to change', distinguishing it from a full replacement. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous, even without explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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 clearly implies usage for updating an existing scheme rather than creating or deleting it. The phrase 'Pass only fields to change' provides guidance on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation use create_scheme) or list any prerequisites.

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