TracePass passport parties

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the two actions (set, remove) and their impact per role. It also mentions validation of GLN, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not cover error handling or side effects.

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 two concise paragraphs. The first paragraph provides context and purpose, the second details actions and parameters. No extraneous content; front-loaded with key information.

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?

While the description explains the action-specific args, it does not specify which args are required for each action (e.g., `id` and `role` are likely required but not marked). Additionally, there is no mention of return values or success/failure indicators, which is notable given the lack of an output schema.

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 input schema only describes `action` as an enum, leaving `args` as a free-form object. The description compensates fully by detailing the accepted args for each action (`set` and `remove`), including optional fields (gln, country, legacyOperatorId). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Manage the economic-operator parties on a passport', specifying the verb 'manage', the resource 'parties', and listing the specific roles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracepass_passports, which handle entire passports, and tracepass_passport_fields, which manage fields.

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 implies usage (when you need to manage parties), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, only the role list.

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