update_requirement

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does so by mentioning version control, the mandatory change_reason for audit, and that a new version number is returned. It does not spell out every side effect, but it covers the most important behavioral traits for a mutation tool in a regulated environment.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact Args list with clear per-parameter semantics, and a Returns line. No redundant information or fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides complete context: the update purpose, version control, audit rationale, all parameter meanings, allowed values, and the return type. The presence of an output schema is not necessary because the Returns line covers the outcome.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It lists all 7 parameters with explicit explanations, marks required ones, and even enumerates allowed values for status and priority. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opens with 'Update requirement with version control (IEC 62304 Section 8)', which clearly identifies the verb (update), the resource (requirement), and a key differentiator (version control/IEC 62304). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_requirement, get_requirement, and get_requirement_history.

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 states the purpose and introduces an audit requirement ('change_reason: Reason for the change (required for audit)'), indicating when this tool should be used in a regulated workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide appropriate use.

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