product_update_artifact

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context (parent_id requirement for sub-artifacts, null to clear custom properties) but omits the most important behavioral question for an update tool: whether `fields` merges into existing values or replaces them entirely.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two non-obvious caveats. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, this is a mutation tool with a nested free-form `fields` object at 0% schema coverage, and the description never states whether omitted fields are preserved or wiped — a gap an agent cannot resolve from structured data alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains parent_id's conditional requirement and that `fields` keys are discovered via get_artifact_schema, which partially compensates, but product_id, artifact_id, and the structure/merge semantics of the free-form `fields` object are left undiscussed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a single artifact by ID") plus the scoping system (Spira product), so it is clearly distinct from product_create_artifact and product_get_artifact in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the verb alone disambiguates.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: sub-artifact types (test_step, mitigation, requirement_step) require parent_id, and it routes the agent to get_artifact_schema for writable fields. Also tells the agent how to clear a custom property. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., bulk updates or creating new artifacts).

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