Update Epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'Update' but does not mention whether it performs a partial update (leaving unspecified fields unchanged), whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the epic does not exist. These gaps are significant for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately lists the relevant fields. It earns its place without wasting tokens.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema explanation, the description is too thin. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., epic must exist), error behavior, partial vs. full update semantics, or what the response contains. An agent calling this tool would lack critical information to use it correctly and safely.

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 lists the updatable fields (name, description, color), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names. However, it does not explicitly mention epicId, which is required but obvious from context. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by identifying what each field does, but it doesn't cover all parameters equally.

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 (update) and the resource (epic) with specific fields (name, description, color). It distinguishes from siblings like create/delete, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource+fields is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kanban_create_epic or kanban_delete_epic. There are no prerequisites, no conditions for use, and no mention of what makes this the right choice. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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