Update Forward For Review

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds context: 'only the supplied fields are changed' and explains the forwarding process. No contradiction 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 relatively concise with three sentences plus a required-params line and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action but includes some extraneous details (e.g., API version info) that could be omitted.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, key constraint, and return value. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but the provided context is sufficient for basic usage.

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 100%, providing detailed param info. The tool description restates required params and adds a note about forwardee_ids, but this largely duplicates the schema's own description. It 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 tool forwards an RFI to a forwardee, making them the new ball in court. It also mentions updating existing RFI records and returning the modified object. However, it slightly mixes 'forward' and 'update' without fully distinguishing from sibling tools like 'update_rfi'.

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 implies usage for forwarding an RFI and includes a constraint ('can only forward to one forwardee'), but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus other RFI update tools or provide alternatives.

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