passgage_update_user_shift

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only says 'update' without disclosing what side effects occur, whether authentication is required, whether unsupported fields are ignored or errors are raised, or whether the update is atomic. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core action. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but as far as structure goes, it is efficient and not verbose.

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 that the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the user_shift data object should contain, how the id is used, or what the response looks like. The agent would have to guess or rely on external knowledge, making the tool incompletely described for an automated 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 provides descriptions for both parameters: 'id' as the UUID and 'data' as an object for updating. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema already gives basic clarity. However, the 'data' parameter is vague (open-ended object with additionalProperties true), and the description does not clarify typical fields or update semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 user_shift' clearly states the action (update) and the target resource (user_shift). It is specific about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this update tool from the many other update tools for different resources in the sibling list. Still, for a single tool, the purpose is unambiguous.

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. The description neither mentions prerequisites, typical use cases, nor contrasts with create, get, or delete operations for user_shifts. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for modifying an existing user_shift, but no context is given about when a partial update vs full replacement is expected.

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