scf_update_deficiency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lowered, but the description still adds real behavioral context: partial-update semantics, the retest_note requirement for completion, and the no-delete rule. It does not mention the status-restore refusal covered in the schema, but the schema carries that.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it is, how partial updates behave, and the no-delete alternative. Front-loaded with the core action and the write/editor warning.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with a rich schema, the description covers the most consequential behaviors an agent needs before calling: partial writes, the completion precondition, and the absence of delete. Return values are not described, but there is no output schema, so a brief note would have helped; still, safety and side effects are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including conditional requirements and clearing rules. The description only reinforces a couple of these points ('only passed fields change', retest_note for completion) and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (deficiency), and immediately flags it as a write for editors. This distinguishes it clearly from read siblings like scf_get_deficiency, scf_list_deficiencies, and scf_get_deficiency_summary.

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?

Tells the agent up front that only passed fields change, and gives the key alternative: 'There is no delete: set status cancelled instead.' That routing guidance is concrete. It does not, however, cover when to use it versus other mutation siblings (e.g., scf_create_deficiency).

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