upsert_suprsend_tenant

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

Describes the critical merge behavior ('tenant_properties is merged with existing — not replaced'), which adds transparency beyond annotations. However, the destructiveHint annotation may contradict this non-destructive merge description, lowering the score.

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?

Reasonably concise with key information front-loaded (purpose, behavior, usage guidance). Could be slightly more compact but effectively structured.

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?

Covers purpose, behavioral details (merge), when-not-to-use with alternatives, and return value. No output schema, but description adequately informs about the response ('returns the updated tenant'). No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the merge semantics and common fields, though it does not provide new details per parameter.

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 it creates or updates a tenant, explains what a tenant is, and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when not to use it with alternative tool names.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use context and lists two alternative tools for specific cases (preference defaults and users/objects within a tenant), offering clear guidance.

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