Update Forward For Review

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description discloses important behavioral details: partial update behavior ('omitted fields keep their current values'), payload nesting ('nested under "rfi" in the request payload for you'), project_id defaulting from prior config, required parameter resolution, and common error scenarios (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It fronts the core purpose, then covers update semantics, parameter handling, prerequisites, return value, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint reference in a logical order. Despite being long, there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers all essential aspects: the action, who performs it, partial update behavior, payload structure, parameter defaults, id resolution prerequisite, return value, error semantics, required parameters, and API endpoint. This is more than adequate for an agent 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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the configured value, id must resolve an existing record, and the payload fields are nested under 'rfi' while passed as top-level arguments. This clarifies how to supply parameters correctly and compensates for schema brevity.

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's purpose: 'Assignee can forward the RFI to a forwardee who becomes a new ball in court.' It uses a specific verb (forward), identifies the resource (RFI), and distinguishes this action from general RFI updates or creation. The endpoint and API reference further confirm the specific operation.

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 clear usage context: who can use it (assignee), what action it performs (forward for review), and prerequisites ('id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It also explains partial update semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other RFI field updates, so it stops short of a 5.

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