ism_coverage_upsert

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: validation of identifier against ISM DB, status enum, attachment paths, and URL/attachment descriptions; default for 'last_reviewed'; atomic writes. This is comprehensive 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by succinct details. No fluff; each sentence adds value. Excellent structure.

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?

Given 11 parameters (3 required) and output schema exists, the description covers validation, defaults, and atomicity. It lacks parameter explanations for some fields, but output schema may document return structure. Marginally insufficient for full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'identifier', 'status', 'last_reviewed', 'urls', 'attachments', but omits 'how_met', 'reviewed_by', 'next_review', 'commits', 'project_path'. Partial compensation earns a middle score.

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 'Create or update one entry in the coverage manifest,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ism_coverage_read' (read-only) and 'ism_coverage_gaps' (analysis), making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for creating or updating coverage records, and sibling names indirectly indicate when not to use it (e.g., read or gap analysis). It lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool mentions, but context is clear.

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