declarations_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the draft-only restriction and the data structure, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial (merging with existing data) or full replacement, whether attachments are replaced or appended, or any validation or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Update a draft declaration'), then provides key details about the data structure and the draft-only constraint. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information about return values, error handling, partial vs. full updates, and any prerequisites beyond the draft status. Given the complexity of updating declarations, an agent would likely need more context to use it correctly, making it incomplete.

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 50% (id and companyId have descriptions; data and metadata do not). The description adds some meaning by explaining that for d212/c168, data.input and data.attachments are relevant, and that metadata is also updatable. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions, but it does not fully specify the expected structure of data or metadata, so it only adds marginal value 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 clearly states the tool's function: updating a draft declaration. It specifies which fields are updatable (data and metadata) and provides detail on the data structure for d212/c168 (input and attachments). The phrase 'Only drafts can be edited' adds a key constraint, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from create, submit, or delete operations.

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 explicitly states that only drafts can be edited, which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., for non-draft declarations, one might need to create a new one or use other tools). The guidance is present but limited to a single constraint, leaving the agent to infer broader context.

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