passgage_update_department

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'update' without revealing whether the update is partial or full replacement, any side effects, required permissions, or how the data object is processed.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys.

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 mutation operation with a nested object parameter and no output schema. The description provides no context about what fields are updatable, the update semantics (e.g., PATCH vs PUT), or the expected response. This is severely under-specified for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 describes both parameters (id and data) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, but given schema coverage is high, it does not need to compensate significantly.

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 'Update an existing department' clearly states the operation (update) and the resource (department). It immediately conveys the tool's purpose, and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools (e.g., update_user, update_card) or specify what aspects of a department can be updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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