Update Punch Item

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms it's an update operation ('returns the modified object on success', 'only the supplied fields are changed'). No contradiction. The description adds value by stating partial updates and return 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 concise and includes essential details, though it could be better structured. It front-loads the main purpose and covers key behaviors without excessive length.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the image upload mechanism, partial updates, and return behavior. It is complete enough for most use cases, though it could mention that the returned object includes the updated fields.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema, including how to upload images via multipart/form-data, the deprecated attachments parameter, and listing required parameters explicitly.

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 'Update a specific Punch Item in a Project' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_punch_item' and 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' by focusing on updating an existing item.

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 Punch List records (only the supplied fields are changed).' This implies when to use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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