passgage_update_assignment_request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only uses the generic verb 'Update' with no further detail. It does not clarify whether this is a partial or full update, whether it validates input, or what side effects occur, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the essential purpose in five words, and every word earns its place. This is highly concise and well-structured, even if overly sparse in other dimensions.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin for an update tool with a permissive 'data' object (additionalProperties: true). It does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), how nested data is handled, or what constitutes a valid update, making it incomplete for an 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no additional meaning about the 'data' object structure or allowed fields, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'assignment_request', making it obvious what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list for the same resource, achieving a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions. The description simply says 'Update an existing assignment_request' without any context about when an update is appropriate or how it differs from other related tools.

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