updateParticipant

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

With no annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior (only supplied fields change) and soft-deactivation via status. It could mention more about idempotency or authorization, but the key behavior is covered.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: purpose, partial-update clarification, and sibling differentiation. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and when to use alternatives. It covers soft-deactivation and partial update clearly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating it's a partial update and listing the common fields to update, reinforcing the schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'participant', and lists exactly which fields can be changed (name, email, timezone, calendar provider, status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling deleteParticipant.

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 'Prefer this over deleteParticipant when you want to stop scheduling someone without erasing their history.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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