Update master data record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: the open-unit-of-work precondition and the fact that absences are out of scope. It does not restate what is destroyed, but destructiveHint=false makes that unnecessary.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the precondition and the exclusion. No redundancy and nothing padding the text.

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?

With a rich oneOf schema, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description only needs to add the operational constraints, which it does via the unit-of-work rule and the absence exclusion. It stops short of tying the update to the resource_pool_edit_open/save workflow, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema exhaustively documents id/code/type/fields and the per-catalog field sets. The description only adds 'single element' and 'partial update', which the schema's 'only the fields given are changed' already conveys. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Changes a single element of the resource pool as a partial update.' The partial-update framing is precise and tells the agent this is not a full overwrite. It distinguishes itself from the absence siblings but never contrasts with resource_create/delete/get, which are the closest neighbors.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Inside an open unit of work only') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative ('Absences cannot be changed here; the absence tools cover them'). It lacks a positive 'when to use this rather than resource_create' statement, but the when-not and alternative routing are clearly present.

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