update_project_estimate_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns an Updated EstimatePoint object, which is expected. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error states) are disclosed beyond 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 structured as a bullet list, starting with a concise one-line purpose. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact by omitting the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels.

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 the 8 parameters, 3 required, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions, prerequisites, or when to use optional parameters, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists all 8 parameters and adds meaningful context (e.g., value max 20 chars, key is integer). It does not explain optionality or inter-parameter relationships, but provides enough for basic understanding.

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 single estimate point,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_project_estimate_points, delete_project_estimate_point, and list_project_estimate_points by focusing on the update operation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create an estimate point). Usage is implied by the verb 'update,' but no when-not-to-use or contextual cues are given.

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