brief_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the tool's behavior, and it does disclose major points: each edit creates a new version, a post-approval edit invalidates the approval, and the brief returns to draft. It omits what happens on failure, whether concurrent edits conflict, and whether the old version remains retrievable.

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, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the spec citation supports the downstream consequence.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object whose schema is undocumented. The description covers versioning and approval invalidation well, but it does not explain the shape of 'changes' and does not state what a successful call returns, even a new version id.

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 nested 'changes' object is completely undocumented. 'Content-field changes' hints at its purpose, but the description does not state whether it needs a patch or a full replacement, which fields count as content fields, or the role of brief_id in versioning. The description must fill this gap and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new brief version from content-field changes.' This distinguishes it from brief_create, which creates the brief itself, but it never refers to its siblings briefly, so a reader must guess the difference between updating a brief and creating a brief version.

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 phrase 'from content-field changes' only implies when to use the tool: it is for edits to content fields of an existing brief, not for metadata edits. The description names no alternative and states no exclusions, even though brief_create, brief_read, and brief_approve sit alongside it.

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