persons.update

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 states 'Update' but fails to specify whether this is a partial update (PATCH) vs full replacement, whether it's idempotent, or error behaviors when the person doesn't exist.

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?

While brief (3 words), this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 mutation tool with 15 parameters, complex nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, a 3-word description is completely inadequate. It omits critical details about the update pattern, field mutability, and response handling.

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 has 0% description coverage across 15 parameters including complex nested objects (address, documents). The description completely fails to compensate for this gap, providing no information about required identifiers (accountId, personId) versus optional updateable fields, expected formats, or validation constraints.

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 phrase 'Update a Ryft person' essentially restates the tool name (persons.update) with minimal added context. While it identifies the resource type, it lacks specificity about scope or updatable fields and fails to differentiate from sibling CRUD operations (persons.create, persons.get).

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., persons.create for new records), nor does it mention prerequisites like the person needing to exist or requiring accountId/personId identifiers.

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