update_sketch

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about the sketch being 'static' and what it should/shouldn't contain. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the update replaces the entire sketch or merges, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, static nature, exclusions, recommended sections, and update triggers. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description provides complete operational context: what it does, what content belongs, what doesn't, when to use it, and even recommended structure. The only minor omission is explicit replacement vs merge behavior, but that is largely implied by 'update' and the single full-blueprint parameter.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the 'sketch' parameter. The description adds semantic depth by explaining the nature of the markdown (static blueprint) and recommending sections, enriching the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 the execution blueprint (markdown)' with a specific action and resource. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by rejecting TODOs, daily progress, task lists, and milestone status, directing users to tasks/milestones instead.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Update on: architecture/strategy shifts or major risk changes.' Also gives when-not-to-use and names alternatives ('use tasks/milestones instead'), making the decision context unmistakable.

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