Update ProdPad User Story

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields preserved) or a full replacement, nor what the response contains.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args block duplicates the schema text word-for-word and therefore does not earn its place. Redundant rather than harmful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits update semantics (partial vs. full), error/not-found behavior, and permission requirements. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, leaving the description only minimally adequate.

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 documents all three parameters. The Args block restates the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no format, constraint, or behavioral detail beyond what structured data provides.

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 ... an existing user story'), which distinguishes it from the create_userstory and create_idea_userstory siblings. The phrase 'content or workflow' is slightly loose since no workflow/status parameter exists, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus prodpad_create_userstory, prodpad_create_idea_userstory, or prodpad_list_userstories. No prerequisites (e.g., the story must already exist, required permissions) are stated.

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