update_procedure_draft_route

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a mutation (readOnlyHint false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as required permissions or what specifically gets updated.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single four-word phrase that does not earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the tool name.

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 six required parameters and no output schema, the description gives no context about what is being updated or how to invoke it correctly. Annotations and schema provide some structured data, but the definition as a whole leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 71%, covering 5 of 7 parameters, but the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. Undescribed fields like the 'type' enum and optional 'trigger' receive no clarification, so the description fails to compensate for the remaining gap.

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 'Update Procedure Draft' restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It names an action and resource at a high level but gives no scope, distinguishing details, or sibling differentiation to help an agent select it.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like create_procedure_route, get_procedure_draft_route, or delete_procedure_draft_route. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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