Manager Update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: merge mode reads the live document first and changes only passed fields, while replace sends the body verbatim. It also warns that high-risk resources restate existing books. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or auth requirements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the warning, then the mode explanation. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the critical decision of merge vs replace and the high-risk confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain what 'key' refers to or how 'business' scoping works, but the output schema and sibling context likely cover some of that. For a mutation tool with openWorldHint, this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter's two values and their semantics, and mentions 'fields' as the fields to pass. It doesn't explain 'key', 'resource', or 'business' in detail, but the description's focus on mode and fields covers the most ambiguous parts. The resource parameter is partially explained by the high-risk list.

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 record in Manager, and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining the merge vs replace behavior. It names the resource and the action with a specific verb, and the context about high-risk resources helps differentiate it from manager_create and manager_delete.

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 explicitly says when to use default merge mode and when to use replace mode, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user for high-risk resources. It also explains why merge is normally preferred because PUT replaces the whole document. This is strong usage guidance.

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