Update supplier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals the non-standard update mechanism (POST with id in body), the requirement for full payload, and error behavior. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but the disclosed behaviors are critical and accurate.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose and endpoint. Each sentence adds distinct value: update operation, non-partial nature, field reference, error handling. There is no redundancy or 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 the tool's complexity (update via POST with full payload) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: how to invoke it, what to include, and how to handle errors. It does not describe the success response or return value, which is a minor gap, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% and baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'body' parameter must include all required fields, not just changed ones, and that 'id' is used to target the update. It also provides context about API documentation and error retry, going beyond the schema.

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 it updates an existing supplier, mentions the specific endpoint (POST /suppliers with id), and distinguishes from create operations by explaining the reuse of the same endpoint. The verb 'update' and resource 'supplier' are explicitly identified.

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 this is not a partial patch and that all required fields must be included, guiding the agent on correct usage. It also provides guidance on field names and error handling (400 error with verbatim message, retry). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. alternatives like create or delete.

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