Update epic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that: it doesn't say that the operation is a partial update where omitted/null fields are left unchanged, doesn't explain the role of `data`, and doesn't mention which fields are mutable.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words, but it is undersized for a mutation tool with six parameters. Conciseness here comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficient editing.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description needed to carry the burden of explaining update semantics and required identifiers (group_id plus epic_iid). It delivers only a restatement of the title, leaving the agent to guess how to form a valid call.

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 6 parameters, so the description is the only place to explain them and it explains none. Most names (title, description, epic_iid, group_id) are fairly self-explanatory, but the opaque `data` blob and the unstated accepted values for `state_event` (e.g. close/reopen) leave real 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?

"Update a group epic" states a verb and resource, and the word "group" correctly places it at group scope, distinguishing it in principle from issue/milestone updaters. But it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name and title: no indication of what can be updated, whether it is a partial or full update, or how it differs from siblings like gitlab_update_issue or gitlab_create_epic.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. group membership/permissions), and no mention of alternatives such as gitlab_create_epic, gitlab_delete_epic, or gitlab_update_issue. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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