Update Enum Option

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, noting that disabled options are hidden but existing values are preserved, and that the updated enum option is returned. This aligns with the non-destructive and idempotent hints, reinforcing safety. It doesn't cover every edge case but provides essential behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and specific attributes. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, and behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 relatively simple update tool with five parameters, the description covers the key behavior (disabling preserves values) and return value. With schema fully describing parameters and annotations providing safety hints, the description is sufficient. It could mention idempotency explicitly but annotations already cover that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meanings of name, color, and enabled by mentioning 'rename', 'change their color', and 'disable/enable', but it doesn't add new syntax details. It also references the return of the updated option, which is helpful.

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 enum option's name, color, or enabled status, using the specific verb 'update' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like asana_create_enum_option by focusing on modification of existing options.

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 explicit use cases: 'rename options, change their color, or disable/enable them.' It also adds context that disabling hides options without deleting, guiding appropriate use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from sibling tools.

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