Update Object Properties

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

The description adds the constraint 'Only mutable properties can be changed,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. The annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true) write operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world semantics (openWorldHint: true). The description doesn't add information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations covering key behavioral aspects, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and adds one important constraint about mutable properties, but doesn't provide guidance on usage context or error handling that would be helpful for an 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (object_id as 'Resource ID' and properties as 'Properties to update'). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints beyond mutability mentioned in the behavioral context.

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 action ('Update') and target ('properties of a tokenized object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like dual_update_face, dual_update_organization, or dual_update_template, which all appear to update different resource types.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to other update tools in the sibling list, or any contextual constraints beyond the basic property mutability note.

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