Modify a person

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and that it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data.' This adds important behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) do not fully capture—specifically the side effects and prerequisite approval. The description also names the HTTP method and endpoint, which is useful for understanding the underlying call. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the verb, resource, endpoint, and key body fields in the first sentence, then adds the reference and safety/authorization warnings in subsequent phrases. Every sentence carries information an agent needs—there is no fluff or repetition. It fits the tool's relatively simple interface without over-explaining.

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 that this is a mutation with nested body fields, no output schema, and a required confirmation flag, the description provides the essential operational context: the HTTP endpoint, the body field list, the confirmation requirement, the operator opt-in, and the potential side effects. It also links to the full API reference for deeper details. Nothing critical for calling the tool correctly appears to be 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?

Although the schema already provides full coverage of the parameters (100%), the description adds value by listing the specific body fields that can be modified (e.g., firstName, lastName, licenseType, roles, site, status, supervisors). This gives an agent a concrete sense of what can be changed beyond the generic 'Complete API JSON payload' schema description. It does not provide per-field types or constraints, but it does enumerate meaningful options, so it earns more than the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Modify a person.' It also gives the exact HTTP endpoint and enumerates the body fields, making the action unmistakable. The verb 'modify' clearly differentiates it from siblings like xmatters_create_a_person and xmatters_delete_a_person, so an agent can select it correctly without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives the context for the operation (modifying an existing person) and mentions prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create or delete. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance or mention of excluded cases, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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