accelo_update_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether changing 'standing' has side effects, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible. For an update tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 structured as a short sentence followed by an Args list. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the purpose. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but not verbose.

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 an 8-parameter update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, partial-update semantics, or how 'standing' transitions affect the request. More context is needed for an agent to call this correctly without trial and error.

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. It briefly labels each parameter (e.g., 'New standing (pending, open, converted, closed)'), which is helpful for the enum-like standing field. However, it does not clarify that most fields are optional, does not explain the semantics of 'fields' (which likely controls response projection, not an update), and does not document the expected format for IDs beyond type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing request.' That clearly distinguishes it from accelo_create_request, accelo_get_request, and accelo_list_requests. However, it does not differentiate it from other update_* tools in the Accelo family beyond the resource name, which is sufficient here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions, required field lookup), and no indication of what happens when fields are omitted. The description only lists parameters without explaining conditions of use.

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