Actions Update Action Title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mandatory approval gate and states the return behavior ('Returns success or an error message'), which is more than a bare mutation statement. It could add details like irreversibility or permission requirements, but the most important behavioral trait is covered.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the most actionable guidance (approval ordering) is included with a direct command. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter update with a full input schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, workflow placement, and result. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both title and action_id. The description adds only that the action is a 'Mitti action,' which is useful context but does not change how parameters should be filled.

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 and object: 'Update the title of a Mitti action.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling actions_update_action_status and the many inspection/template tools, so an agent knows exactly what resource is affected.

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 gives an explicit sequential precondition: call request_approval first, wait for the user's decision, then call this tool. This names the relevant sibling and tells the agent precisely when in the workflow this tool is valid.

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