Update Correspondent

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'patch', such as what happens to unspecified fields, whether the correspondent must exist, or whether patch merges or replaces. It relies entirely on the annotations.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification, which is reflected in other dimensions.

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 a tool with a nested patch object, required correspondent_id, and multiple sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between the fields, valid matching_algorithm values, or how patch behaves with defaults. The output schema may cover return values, but callers lack enough context to invoke this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only says 'selected fields' without naming correspondent_id or the patch sub-fields (name, match, is_insensitive, matching_algorithm). This adds little meaning over the schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('correspondent'), and 'selected fields' conveys a partial-update semantics. It is not a tautology, and it clearly distinguishes this tool from create/delete/list operations, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_correspondent, bulk_edit_correspondents, or delete_correspondent. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided; usage is only implied by the resource name.

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