redmine_version_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method PUT and the verb 'update', but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what fields are affected, whether permissions are required, or what happens to unspecified version properties.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a single sentence that names the action and endpoint. It wastes no words, though the brevity contributes to missing explanatory content.

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 tool with two parameters, a nested unconstrained object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent would not know the expected structure of the 'version' payload, whether updates are partial or whole-object, or what the API returns.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not: neither 'id' nor the 'version' object is described, and the arbitrary nested object has no field guidance. The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema property names.

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 version') and the resource ('version'), and the endpoint 'PUT /versions/:id.json' confirms the target. It is clear enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like redmine_version_create or redmine_version_delete.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as creating, deleting, or fetching a version. The description simply states what the tool does without context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.

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