Update Observation Item

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses side effects: changing `status` appends a Response Log and notifies the distribution list, and changing assignees notifies added users. It also documents error payload behavior (401, 403, 404) and return value. 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 fairly long but front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains some redundancy ('Only the attributes you send are changed' and 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), but overall it is well-structured and information-dense.

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 four-parameter schema, nested `observation` object, and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: partial update semantics, side effects, error handling, prerequisites, and return value. The only minor gap is lack of detail on the `observation` object structure, but the schema covers that.

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% (all properties described), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: the exclusivity of `assignee_id`/`assignee_ids`, the requirement that `id` refer to an existing record, and a summary of required parameters. It also references deprecated `attachments`, though that's in the schema too.

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 opens with 'Updates an Observation Item' and clarifies that it performs a partial update ('Only the attributes you send are changed'), which distinguishes it from a full replacement. It also lists the API endpoint and required parameters, making the tool's function unambiguous even among many sibling observation 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?

It provides concrete guidance: resolve the `id` with the matching list tool first, send only intended fields, and avoid supplying both `assignee_id` and `assignee_ids`. It does not explicitly name alternative update tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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