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 only implies a mutation operation ('update') but does not mention whether partial updates are allowed, the effect on existing fields, error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 extremely concise with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. While it is efficient, it is so minimal that it provides little beyond a tautological expansion of the tool name, though it is not misleading.

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?

The description lacks essential context for an update operation: no return value specification, no note on partial updates, no error handling, and no usage scenarios. Given no annotations or output schema, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already defines each field (name, status, epic_id, description) clearly.

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 identifies the action (update) and resource (epic), which distinguishes it from create_epic or get_epic. However, 'details' is generic and doesn't specify the update scope beyond the resource, so it's not fully specific.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like update_task, or on situations where updating an epic is appropriate. The description gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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