Update consultation request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a genuinely important trait — that admin_notes is overwritten rather than appended — which prevents the agent from misusing the tool destructively. However, it stops short of stating partial-update semantics (e.g., whether omitting admin_notes clears it), permission requirements, or what the response looks like.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the core operation and scope, the second delivers the routing guidance. 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the key sibling distinction. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing valid status values and unspecified partial-update behavior leave real gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the two updatable fields (status, admin_notes), which maps to the schema properties, but it gives no guidance on valid status values, id format, or constraints on admin_notes. An agent still has to guess what strings status accepts, leaving a significant gap at 0% 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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a precise resource ('a consultation request'), and the exact scope ('status and/or admin_notes'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_inquiry_note, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative (add_inquiry_note) and the condition that selects it: append a timestamped note rather than overwrite admin_notes. This is ideal routing guidance and leaves nothing to inference.

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