update_address

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait ('Only non-null fields are sent'), which is valuable beyond annotations (none provided). However, it does not mention return value, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the update behavior (partial update). It lacks details on error handling or success response, but the output schema can fill the latter gap. Tool is moderately complex, description is mostly adequate.

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 100%, and the description adds a critical semantic detail: 'Only non-null fields are sent' — clarifying that null fields are ignored during update. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'Update an address', specifying the verb and resource. It also provides a key nuance ('Only non-null fields are sent'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_address or delete_address.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to call update_address vs create_address). It implies partial update behavior but lacks contextual guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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