update_audit_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, authorization requirements, or whether existing results are replaced or appended.

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 moderately long but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then breaks down item structure and allowed values. It's efficient but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding input requirements but lacks details on success/error responses, which are common for write operations. It should mention if results are fully replaced or merged.

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 with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the array structure, listing topic numbers with names, and enumerating status and user impact values, which are not fully captured in 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 tool updates criterion results for an audit using an array of items. The verb 'update' and resource 'criterion results' are specific, and no sibling tool has a similar write function for results.

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 detailed allowed values (topics, statuses, user impacts) which guide parameter usage, but it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_audit_results or state when to prefer this tool.

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