merit_update_vendor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), the partial-update semantics ('other fields are optional patches'), and version capability ('v2 supports Dimensions'). It does not cover authentication, error behavior, or return values, but the key mutation semantics are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and required parameter are front-loaded, and the remaining details are compact and relevant.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete. It lacks return value expectations, error conditions, authorization requirements, and explicit guidance on how it differs from related vendor tools.

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?

The description adds meaningful patch semantics beyond the schema: fields besides id are optional and can be patched individually. However, schema description coverage is only 8%, so the description does not explain the meaning or format of the 12 undocumented fields, making the compensation partial.

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 tool updates a Merit Aktiva vendor, includes the exact endpoint, and explains that id is required while other fields are optional patches. This distinguishes it from create/list sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its core function.

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 verb 'Update' and the vendor context imply it should be used for modifying existing vendors, and sibling names like merit_create_vendor and merit_list_vendors suggest alternatives. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of others or mentions exclusions or prerequisites beyond id.

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