passgage_update_shift_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an existing shift_setting' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, or what response to expect. This is insufficient 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 concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks meaningful content that would justify its brevity, such as key context or usage notes. It is not overly verbose, but the minimalism detracts from its usefulness.

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?

For an update tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a shift_setting is, what fields data should contain, whether the update replaces or merges, or any return value. The information provided is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially given the generic 'data' object.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (id and data), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and the data object is vaguely described as 'The data for updating the shift_setting' with additionalProperties true, which could benefit from elaboration.

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 action (update) and the target resource (shift_setting), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other resources. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it lacks additional detail about the scope of the update.

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 creating, deleting, or retrieving a shift_setting. It does not mention any alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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