Runn: update phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PATCH method and partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention permanence, permissions, side effects, or return behavior, leaving some transparency gaps for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, endpoint, and key behavior with zero filler. Perfectly concise and structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and partial-update nuance, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, it omits return format, error scenarios, and any prerequisites. For a tool with 6 parameters and no structured context, this is adequate but not complete.

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 description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only references projectId and phaseId in the endpoint path, without elaborating on their semantics or the optional fields (name, color, dates). This provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Update a phase', with the specific PATCH endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like runn_create_phase and runn_delete_phase. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' further clarifies partial update semantics.

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 that only provided fields are updated, implying partial updates and that not all fields are required. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or reference alternatives (e.g., use runn_create_phase for new phases), so it falls short of a 5.

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