update_examinee

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the destructive behavior concretely: customData replaces the whole object, masked values are rejected, and re-sending read customData can wipe or corrupt phone fields. This tells the agent exactly why the operation is destructive and how to use it safely.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and locating rule, the editable fields, the immutable fields, and the critical customData warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains the team context, how to reference the examinee, which fields are editable vs. immutable, and the exact risk with customData. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema's customData property already documents the replacement semantics, validation rules, and the masked-value hazard in detail. The description largely repeats that information, adding only a slightly more explicit warning about not re-sending read values. Thus it provides little extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('examinee', alias 'respondent'), and scope ('in the current team'), and states the locating key (examineeId from list_examinees). It clearly separates editable from immutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

It gives clear context: the examinee is team-scoped and must be located via the business ID from list_examinees. It also conveys when-not by stating that email, tenant, and examineeId cannot be changed and warning against re-sending customData. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but no sibling directly updates examinees, so the guidance is sufficient.

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