glpi_update_problem

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any behavioral details. The tool could be destructive or have side effects, but nothing is disclosed.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is concise and gets to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or any other context that would help an agent understand the full behavior or requirements of the 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?

The description adds no information beyond the schema. The schema only provides generic names and simple descriptions ('ID do problem' and 'Campos a serem atualizados'), and the input object is open-ended with additionalProperties. The description does not clarify what fields are valid or required, making it insufficient for effective invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Atualiza' - updates) and the target resource ('um problem existente' - an existing problem), distinguishing it from create/get/delete operations. However, it does not specify what aspects of the problem can be updated, which is a minor gap.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of others (e.g., when to update vs. create, or any prerequisites). The description lacks any context for selection among sibling tools.

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