update_version

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It conveys the field-level intent of each argument but omits auth requirements, whether nulls mean "leave unchanged" (partial vs full update semantics), and whether setting archived/released triggers side effects. For a 7-parameter mutation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A one-line purpose followed by an args list – front-loaded and free of filler. The format is functional rather than elegant, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the argument list is complete. However, for an unannotated mutation the description should at least signal partial-update behavior and permission expectations to be fully sufficient.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it documents all seven, including the YYYY-MM-DD format for start_date and release_date and the source of version_id. It doesn't clarify the null-default semantics, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 version/release") that an agent can map cleanly against siblings create_version, delete_version, and get_versions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only routing hint is "get from get_versions" for the version_id, which helps with one prerequisite but says nothing about when to update versus create or delete a version. No conditions, exclusions, or permissions are mentioned.

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