passgage_update_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update an existing shift,' which implies mutation but doesn't clarify permissions, partial update support, error behavior for nonexistent IDs, or the response format. This is a significant transparency gap 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While short, it is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 simple signature, but the 'data' object is open-ended with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent without guidance on what fields are valid. The description doesn't mention common updatable fields or any constraints. For a clear, complete picture of how to invoke this tool, more information is needed.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'id' and 'data'. However, the 'data' description ('The data for updating the shift') is tautological and doesn't list valid fields. Since the schema provides some coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in 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 'Update an existing shift' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (shift). It distinguishes from other sibling tools like create_shift and delete_shift, but doesn't differentiate from update_shift_setting or other update tools beyond the resource name. Still, it is specific enough for basic selection.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing shifts, while create_shift is for new ones, or that update_shift_setting handles shift settings rather than shifts. The description gives no context for tool selection.

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