update_saved_therapist

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'without contacting the therapist' largely restates the structured signal that no external side effect occurs. The description adds nothing about partial-update behavior, whether null notes/status clears a field, or what the write returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target data, and the key boundary condition with no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation the description leaves null-handling and partial-update semantics unspecified. Adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it names 'notes/status' (two of three params) but says nothing about profile_id or about how null values are interpreted for either field. Partial compensation for a 3-parameter 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 gives a specific verb (update) and resource (the user's local shortlist notes/status) and scopes it as local-only, which separates it from write-heavy siblings like save_therapist and delete_saved_therapist. It does not name an alternative sibling outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'without contacting the therapist' hints that contact-logging tools (log_contact, draft_enquiry) are the wrong choice for note/status bookkeeping. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule.

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