Update Action Plan Section

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds context about partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed') and the effect of the view parameter on the response. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 front-loaded with 'Updates an Action Plan Section', but it includes redundant phrases like 'Action Plans' repeated, and the API reference and view explanation add length. It could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description says 'returns the modified object on success' but does not detail the structure. It explains the view parameter's impact. Annotations are present but minimal. The description covers required params and partial update, but lacks details on response format or potential errors.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the view parameter options and emphasizes required parameters (project_id, id). It adds minor value by noting that only supplied fields are changed, which relates to the optional title parameter, but overall does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'Action Plan Section'. It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, list, and show by explicitly mentioning 'update an existing Action Plans'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Action Plans (only the supplied fields are changed)' which implies when to use it, but does not provide alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. Sibling tools like bulk_update_action_plan_item are not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing among related operations.

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