Update correspondent

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does add the key fact that omitted fields retain their current values — a genuine behavioral trait not present in the annotations. But it discloses nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or what happens with the overwriting set_permissions behavior (which the schema, not the description, covers).

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, roughly 18 words, with the operative qualifier 'partially' front-loaded in the very first phrase. There is zero filler, no restating of the title, and no repetition of schema details — every sentence 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?

For a 7-parameter write operation with a nested set_permissions object and no output schema, the description covers the core partial-update semantics but omits return-value behavior, authorization requirements, and routing guidance relative to create/get/delete_correspondent. The rich schema descriptions for matching_algorithm and set_permissions partially compensate, but the tool description alone would leave an agent guessing on several call-relevant points.

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 71%, with id and name lacking descriptions; the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning for any of the 7 fields. The generic partial-update statement applies uniformly but does not compensate for the 29% undocumented parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the load.

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 names a specific verb ('partially update') and resource ('correspondent'), and the partial qualifier adds crucial meaning beyond the title by clarifying PATCH-style semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for the same resource (create/get/delete_correspondent) and from other update_* tools.

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 second sentence ('omitted fields keep their current value') implies a usage rule: only pass fields you intend to change. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this vs. alternatives like create_correspondent or delete_correspondent, and gives no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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