accelo_update_signoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful trait — that this endpoint only mutates the body field — but omits auth/permission requirements, reversibility, and side effects of updating a signoff, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope constraint. The 'Args:' block partially restates the schema, but it remains tight and each parameter line adds a small amount of meaning.

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?

Purpose and parameter meaning are covered, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks auth requirements and effect/side-effect detail that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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, and it does: it labels id as the 'Signoff ID (required)', body as 'New body content (required)', and fields as 'Additional fields to return'. The 'fields' semantics in particular adds meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update a signoff's body') and constrains scope with 'Only the body field is updatable via this endpoint.' This distinguishes it from sibling signoff mutators like accelo_update_signoff_recipient, accelo_update_signoff_attachment, and accelo_redraft_signoff without needing the schema.

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?

It implies when to use it via the scope constraint (body-only editing), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over redraft_signoff, send_signoff, or the recipient/attachment update endpoints. Usage must be inferred from the field-scope note.

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