updatePerson

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully explains custom-field key prefixes and the JSON-null vs string-null clearing behavior, but it does not disclose whether omitted standard fields remain unchanged or are reset, nor does it mention permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is above minimal but leaves meaningful 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and packs dense, useful guidance about custom fields without filler. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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's 18 parameters, absence of output schema, and lack of annotations, the description covers the purpose and custom-field nuances well but omits important update semantics, such as whether omitted standard fields are preserved or replaced. It also does not describe what the tool returns. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete for a mutation 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 input schema already documents all 18 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to pass custom fields as additional top-level keys prefixed with 'custom' and how to clear them with JSON null, which the static schema cannot express. This raises it above baseline.

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 action: 'Update an existing person in FUB.' It identifies the resource (person) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like createPerson, getPerson, and bulkUpdatePeople by specifying singular existing-person update semantics. The custom-fields note adds useful scope without confusing the core purpose.

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 scopes the tool to updating an existing person and gives concrete guidance for custom fields, including running listCustomFields to discover valid field names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among the large sibling set.

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