scf_update_engagement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and an authorization requirement ('write — admin role'). However, it does not describe the return value, error handling, or idempotency, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking a mutation without an output schema.

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 sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the partial-update behavior and admin-role note. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

While the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics, and permission, it omits any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., updated object or success status). Given there is no output schema, an agent may not know how to interpret the response. It also does not clarify required fields, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficient for basic invocation but lacking in response details for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and format. The description maps to most parameters (name, frameworks, status, dates) but does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. It omits mention of required org_id and engagement_id, but those are clearly specified in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('audit engagement') and explicitly lists the fields that can be modified (name, frameworks, status, dates). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scf_create_engagement and scf_delete_engagement by using 'update' and focusing on modification of existing engagements, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies modification of an existing engagement (via 'update') but does not state prerequisites, when to use create/delete, or any exclusion conditions. The admin role note is a permission hint, not usage guidance. With a large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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