update_vision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the operation ('set or update') and adds context that the vision is a short, fixed statement, but it does not disclose whether updates replace the existing vision or any other side effects. For a simple setter, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences plus an example, with no redundant words or repetition of schema details. Every part contributes value.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, format, and an example. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens on update (e.g., overwrite), but the provided context is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: it clarifies that the vision should be a 'short, fixed statement' and provides a concrete example, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'Project vision statement'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set or update') and identifies the exact resource ('project vision') with clarifying context ('what we're building'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_sketch and update_my_status by focusing on the project-level vision.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when setting or updating the overarching project vision, and clarifies that it is a short, fixed statement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the specificity of 'project vision' differentiates it well from siblings.

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