Api organisation objectives update

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on which fields are replaced by a full update, whether omitted fields are cleared, or permission/auth requirements.

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?

It is short, but only because it conveys no information beyond the name; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of action, scope or effect.

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?

A mutation endpoint with a free-form body, no output schema and 0% parameter documentation needs the description to carry everything. It carries nothing, leaving an agent unable to determine payload shape or update semantics.

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% and the body is an untyped anyOf object with additionalProperties=true; neither schema nor description says what fields the update payload accepts. The single required 'id' is undocumented as to format (UUID vs integer string).

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 is literally the tool name with separators removed ("api_organisation_objectives_update"), so it only restates the title. From the name alone an agent can infer an update operation on organisation objectives, but no verb+resource statement or scope is actually provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many siblings that look nearly identical (organisation_objectives_partial_update, _update is the only full-update variant, plus _destroy, _create, _duplicate_create). The full-vs-partial distinction, which is the key selection decision here, is never mentioned.

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