update_an_address

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds 'Idempotent' which repeats the annotation, and 'modifies in place' which is minimal context. No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations offer.

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 extremely concise with a front-loaded header and two short sentences. No unnecessary words, and the structure efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key trait (idempotency).

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?

The tool has a complex nested body parameter, and no output schema is provided. The description does not explain what the response looks like or success/error behavior. While schema covers parameters, the lack of output information leaves some gaps for the agent.

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 the input schema already describes parameters (e.g., id, body fields). The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update an address' and specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings such as create_an_address and delete_an_address by focusing on modification of existing records.

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 implies usage for updating existing address records, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like update_a_contact_new. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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