nexus_update_changelog

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the ownership authorization requirement and the concrete success/error return shape, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not over-explain side effects, but the update semantics are clear.

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 two compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded. It includes the essential capability, an ownership caveat, and the return shape without filler.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation with a stated return contract and ownership prerequisite. An output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly. Minor gap: no explicit statement that this is for modifying an existing entry versus creating a new one.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful semantic beyond the schema: the changelog_id must refer to an entry owned by the caller. The description param is adequately described as 'New changelog text.'

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing changelog entry'), and a key precondition ('must own it'). 'via v2 GraphQL' plus the return shape removes ambiguity and differentiates it from read/create changelog tools.

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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: updating a changelog entry the caller owns. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nexus_create_changelog or the read-only changelog retrieval tools, so the agent must infer the when-not-to-use boundary.

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