Update Initiative

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'omitted fields are unchanged' confirms idempotency for same payload, 'null unlinks' for objective_id clarifies how to remove a link, and status enum values are listed. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states core action and partial update. Second sentence covers field-specific behavior and source of id. 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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers update semantics, status enum, objective_id unlinking, and id retrieval. It lacks error handling or return format details, but those are minor omissions given the simplicity of the operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description enriches each parameter: id's source (list_initiatives), objective_id null behavior, status allowed values, and the general rule that omitted fields are unchanged. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 an initiative, with specific verb 'Update' and resource 'initiative'. It explicitly notes partial update behavior ('omitted fields are unchanged') and distinguishes from related tools like create_initiative or update_objective by focusing on initiative fields like objective_id and status enums.

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 tells users to resolve the initiative id via list_initiatives and that only id is required, providing clear prerequisites and minimal requirements. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use this to modify an existing initiative; for creation, use create_initiative'), but the context of update versus create is implicitly clear.

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