Update warehouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals merge-patch behavior, null field removal, slug immutability, and points to get_operation_schema for the request shape, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions or response format, but key behaviors are adequately covered.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key semantics. It avoids redundancy and each sentence earns its place, including the pointer to get_operation_schema.

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?

The tool has two parameters with full schema descriptions and a nested object, and the description clarifies merge-patch update behavior and constraints while directing to get_operation_schema for the request shape. It does not explain the response format, but for an update tool with no output schema and good schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, with 'warehouse' marked as a merge-patch record. The description adds semantics by explaining how to use the warehouse object: 'send only the fields to change; setting a field to null removes it' and the slug cannot be changed. This goes beyond the schema's baseline value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing warehouse via JSON Merge Patch', specifying a distinct verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_warehouse, get_warehouse, and warehouse_action.

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 gives clear context for use: updating an existing warehouse with merge-patch semantics, including how to send only changed fields and use null to remove. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond slug immutability, so it falls short of a 5.

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