Update Person

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the sparse update/PATCH semantics, specifies the return format ('Confirmation and the updated person record'), and details error behavior ('Error: Resource not found' for invalid ID). Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, but the description complements this with practical implementation details.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sparse update semantics, parameter details, and return/error info. It's efficient but could be slightly more concise by avoiding duplication of schema details in the Args section.

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 mutation nature (annotations show readOnlyHint=false), lack of output schema, and 8 parameters, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits (sparse update, returns, errors), and parameter context. It could improve by mentioning authentication or rate limits, but it's sufficient for effective use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter info (e.g., format for birthdate, enum values for gender/status) but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Update an existing person record'), the target resource ('in Planning Center People'), and distinguishes it from siblings like pco_create_person (creation) and pco_get_person (retrieval). It's precise about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (updating existing person records) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for creation, use pco_create_person). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide detailed exclusions beyond the sparse update semantics.

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