QMetry: Update Issue

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating that only fields to be updated should be passed (implying partial update) and that entityKey provides additional validation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then parameters list, output description, use cases, examples, and hints. Every section contributes useful information. It could be slightly more concise, but the organization is effective.

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 a tool with 9 parameters (mostly optional), no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, parameter details, use cases, examples, hints, and even references to sibling tools like fetch and create. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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% coverage, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it emphasizes the critical capital D in DefectId, notes that DefectId accepts a string or number (despite schema type: number), and provides usage patterns like 'pass only those fields which are to be updated.'

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 the action ('Update an existing QMetry issue') and identifies the resource. The use cases and examples further clarify the tool's purpose. It is distinct from siblings like qmetry_update_cycle and qmetry_update_test_case.

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 provides extensive guidance through use cases, examples, and hints. It explains when to use the tool (e.g., updating summary, priority, type) and how to obtain the required DefectId. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context with siblings like create_defect_or_issue implies the appropriate usage.

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