accelo_update_signoff_recipient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: draft-only editing, the approver restriction on response, and that only non-None fields are sent (partial update). It stops short of describing return values, error behavior, or permissions for other fields.

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-loads the purpose, then states constraints, then lists arguments in a structured Args block. The parameter list repeats schema names but adds compensating meaning given the missing schema descriptions. No wasted sentences.

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 covers purpose, preconditions, and parameter meanings for a 4-param mutation tool. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the update returns or how errors are surfaced, an agent lacks return-value context. This is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maps all four parameters to brief meanings (recipient_id ID, approver boolean, response string, fields to return), which is useful, but it does not specify allowed values for `response` or the format for `fields`, leaving semantic gaps that could cause invocation errors.

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 starts with 'Update a signoff recipient,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from create/delete signoff recipient siblings by the update action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear from the first sentence.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not constraints: recipient editable only while signoff is in draft, and response may only be updated for your own record if you are an approver. These are actionable usage rules. However, no alternative tools are named for related operations.

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