REP Helper

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

Discloses critical partial-update behavior (fields omitted are not changed), which is essential given no annotations. However, missing other key behavioral details: error handling (what happens if ID not found?), side effects, validation rules for dates, or whether the operation is atomic.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an existing property'), followed immediately by critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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?

Minimum viable for a 9-parameter update operation with nested objects. The partial-update disclosure covers the primary risk, but given the complexity (multiple date fields, address replacement semantics, active status), the description lacks business logic context that would help an agent understand side effects of specific field changes.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear field descriptions, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable partial-update semantics applicable to parameters, but does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., date precedence rules) or provide examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States specific action ('Update') and resource ('property'), and distinguishes from create/delete/get siblings by specifying 'existing.' However, it does not differentiate from update_activity or explain what constitutes a 'property' in this domain.

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?

Provides implicit guidance through 'Only include fields you want to change,' indicating partial/PATCH-like update semantics. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., property must exist), or comparison to sibling update_activity.

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