edit_parent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PS_ENABLE_WRITES permission requirement and the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields change; existing student links are preserved'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects like reversibility or response format.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, permission note, behavioral note, and a parameter list. It is somewhat repetitive since param details could be inferred from schema, but the semantic additions justify the length. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essentials: purpose, permission, partial update, and prerequisite. It does not mention error handling or what the response contains, but the output schema presumably covers return values. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a short explanation, notably clarifying that user_id comes from list_parents. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it does not detail formats for phone/email or examples, which would be helpful.

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 states 'Update a guardian's name, email, or phone' which clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (guardian), and the specific fields affected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_parent (create) and list_parents (read) without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Get the user_id from list_parents(school_id)' and clarifies partial update behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like add_parent or invite_parent, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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