update_competitor

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

Given no annotations, the description partially discloses the bulk side effect of setting cadence/status on all monitors. However, it omits idempotency, permission requirements, reversibility, and confirmation of changes. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It quickly communicates the HTTP method and core action. Excellent conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only covers the core action. It omits crucial context such as expected output (e.g., success message or updated object), error conditions, idempotency, and prerequisite conditions. Incomplete for a mutation 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that status and cadence are applied to all monitors, but it does not explain the enum values (e.g., what 'paused' or 'hourly' mean). The description elevates baseline from 2 to 3 by providing context about bulk application.

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?

Description states 'Set cadence or status on all monitors for this competitor' which clearly indicates the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_competitor (creation) and update_monitor (individual monitor updates), though there is slight ambiguity about whether it updates the competitor itself or just monitors.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, from sibling context (update_monitor exists), it implies this tool is for bulk updates on all monitors of a competitor. The description lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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