innoslate_update

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

Annotations declare the write/idempotency profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds the meaningful dry-run plus confirm_token two-phase flow. It also clarifies that labels 'replaces' while add_labels appends, a real behavioral distinction. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the field/flow detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 nested-fields mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial fields-object semantics and the confirm flow adequately. Minor gaps remain around permissions and error/validation behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 burden, and it does enumerate the fields-object keys (name, number, description, description_html, labels, add_labels, attributes, relations, parent, document) with the important replaces-vs-append note. It leaves wrapper params like project_url and id semantics undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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?

'Change one existing entity by id' gives a specific verb and resource and scopes it to a single entity. It contrasts implicitly with the bulk-oriented innoslate_apply, though it doesn't fully spell out when to prefer one over the other.

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 reference to 'Same dry-run and confirm_token flow as innoslate_apply' implies a two-step preview/confirm workflow, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no statement of which siblings (e.g. innoslate_apply, innoslate_get) this should be chosen over.

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