suppliers_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait — that core ANAF fields are immutable — which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe the mutation's effect (partially updating only provided fields vs replacing), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately clarify the immutability constraint. Efficient with no wasted words, though it could mention null-clearing semantics.

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 12-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adds critical context (which fields are protected). However, it doesn't clarify partial-update semantics, null-clearing behavior, or response format, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 100%, so every parameter has a brief schema description. The tool description adds value by grouping params into categories (contact, address, banking, notes) and clarifying that updates are restricted to editable fields, but doesn't add syntax/format details beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Update editable fields of a supplier record.' It explicitly distinguishes from the broader supplier CRUD by enumerating which field categories are editable (contact, address, banking, internal notes) and explicitly excluding core ANAF data (name, CUI). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like suppliers_create and suppliers_delete.

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 clearly states what can and cannot be updated ('Core data (name, CUI) from ANAF cannot be modified'), giving the agent explicit constraints on when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for modifying non-editable fields or mention prerequisites like the required uuid lookup.

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