Update Initiative

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: 'omitted fields are unchanged' and 'null unlinks' for objective_id. It also states the return behavior ('return it'). Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the description adds useful nuance about partial updates without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences, each dense with essential information. It front-loads the primary action, then covers field-specific behaviors and id resolution. No filler or restating of obvious details; every sentence 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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: partial update semantics, how to set/unlink objective_id, allowed status values, and the minimal required parameter. It could mention the structure of the returned object, but 'return it' is sufficient for an agent to know that the updated initiative is returned. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for successful invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining a global semantic: 'omitted fields are unchanged' applies to all parameters, and it clarifies the effect of null for objective_id ('null unlinks'). It also restates the enum for status, but that's already in the schema. Overall, it enriches understanding of how parameters behave without repeating every field description.

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's function: 'Update an initiative and return it; omitted fields are unchanged.' The verb 'update' and resource 'initiative' are specific, and the phrase 'return it' clarifies the output. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_initiative by focusing on modifying an existing initiative rather than creating a new one.

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 practical usage context: 'Resolve the id via list_initiatives; only id is required.' This tells the agent to first look up the initiative id, and that id is the only mandatory parameter. It also gives hints for specific fields like objective_id and the status enum, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for different actions. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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