Update a competitor

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so 'Safe to retry' is partially redundant. The description's real added value is warning that omitted values are dropped, which is behavioral disclosure an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the critical replace-all constraint; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a 6-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential mental model (full replacement, retry-safe). It leaves the identifier parameters and any validation or error behavior unexplained, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it does explain that name, websiteDomains and brandNames are replace-all fields. It says nothing about the three identifier parameters (organizationId, projectId, competitorId) beyond their names, and adds no format or array-handling detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') and the three resources affected (name, website domains, brand names), which cleanly separates it from create_competitor and delete_competitor in the sibling list.

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?

Gives the key operational rule — it is a full replacement, so every domain and name that should be kept must be passed. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are named, but the replacement contract is spelled out.

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