yougile_update_department

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation with destructive intent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'soft-delete', clarifying that deletion is non-permanent. This is beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 one succinct sentence, front-loading the action and resource. The parenthetical enumerates the modifiable aspects without fluff, earning its place.

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 simple CRUD update with no output schema, the description covers the core action and modifiable fields. However, it omits what happens upon success/failure (e.g., return value) and whether the update is partial or full, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. It is adequate but not rich.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description's parenthetical lists the same fields without adding new syntax or behavioral detail, matching the baseline for schema-heavy documentation.

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 tool updates a department, listing the specific fields (title, users, soft-delete) that can be changed. The verb 'Update' is precise, and the resource 'department' distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other entities.

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 use for modifying the title, user list, or soft-deleting a department, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives like create_department. It provides basic context but no exclusion criteria.

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