persons_list_field_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the operation is read-only ('list'), describes return fields (who, what, when), and mentions pagination. No contradictions.

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?

Description is structured with bullet points and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'changelog' concept).

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (field names, old/new values, user, timestamp). It also covers pagination for large datasets. Missing permissions info, but acceptable for a read tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no significant meaning beyond schema parameters (e.g., it mentions cursor-based pagination, which schema already implies).

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('updates about person field values'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like persons_list (list persons) and persons_list_updates (general updates).

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 lists use cases (auditing, tracking, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage context but lacks direct guidance.

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