redmine_update_version

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 that it updates a version (implying mutation) and returns the refreshed version. It also mentions the partial update behavior and the REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY flag. However, it lacks details on authentication, side effects, or error conditions.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, partial update nature, return value, read-only flag). There is no trivial information, but it could be structured better.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema description (though output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain which fields are required (only version_id is required per schema), nor does it provide examples or constraints. The output schema is not described but exists separately.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or formats. The only hint is 'Partial — only supplied fields are sent,' which implies that the properties are updatable fields, but it does not compensate for the lack of individual parameter documentation.

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 'Update a version,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. It returns the refreshed version, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like redmine_update_issue, though the context of versions is distinct.

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 minimal guidance: it notes that only supplied fields are sent (indicating partial updates) and that it honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redmine_create_version) or any prerequisites.

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