dosare_update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior with 'null unlinks' for clientId/supplierId and the auto-linking rule at creation time. It does not say whether omitted fields are left untouched (PATCH semantics) versus reset, which matters a lot on a 10-optional-parameter mutation.

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?

Field list is front-loaded right after the verb, and the second sentence covers the one non-obvious linking rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical field grouping keeps the enumeration compact.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, the definition covers most of what matters but leaves one significant hole: whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields preserved) or a replace. 'subject fields (merged)' hints at merge semantics only for that one nested object, leaving the top-level semantics ambiguous.

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 only 9% (just companyId), so the description has to carry the load and largely does: it explains the status enum values, the deadlineAt + deadlineLabel pairing, that subject fields are merged, and that passing null to clientId/supplierId unlinks. Only id and companyId are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (dosar) and enumerates exactly which fields can be changed, so an agent knows the tool's scope immediately. It does not explicitly contrast with dosare_create / dosare_get, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

There is targeted guidance for one case: set the client/supplier link manually when the client record has a different identifier, since creation auto-resolves it by tenant CUI/CNP. However, there is no general when-to-use framing, no note on when to use this versus a specialized tool like dosare_attach or the d212/c168 prefill tools, and no prerequisites stated.

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