update_correspondent

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description merely says 'Patch' which aligns but provides no extra detail.

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 with a single sentence, but it sacrifices needed detail. It could be slightly longer to add value while remaining efficient.

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 complexity of a patch operation and multiple parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the patch structure, allowed values, or behavior, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 description offers no explanation of the parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't compensate by describing the patch object fields or correspondent_id meaning.

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 tool patches selected fields on a correspondent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_correspondent and delete_correspondent.

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 or any prerequisites. It lacks context for appropriate usage.

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