update_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged') and the return value ('Returns the updated person record'), which are crucial for understanding the tool's effects. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permissions, or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second explains update behavior, third provides usage guidance and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the partial update behavior, return value, and alternative tools. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements, error handling, or what constitutes a valid record_id. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally detail the return structure more explicitly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the updatable fields ('name fields, description, and/or LinkedIn URL'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Update an existing person'), target resource ('in Attio CRM'), and mechanism ('by record ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_person (for creation) and get_person (for retrieval). It precisely defines the scope of the operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'To manage email addresses, use add_person_email and remove_person_email tools instead.' This clearly delineates the tool's scope from related sibling tools, helping the agent choose correctly.

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