update_followup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that a followup is timestamped and signed, that editing rewrites visible history, and that edits should be limited to recent factual corrections. It still does not cover permissions, return behavior, or what exactly happens to the existing signature/timestamp metadata.

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 the core purpose, then gives field examples, format constraints, and the key safety note. Each sentence adds distinct value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the important behavioral and usage context well. It remains incomplete on parameter details and return/error behavior, but the critical historical-rewrite warning is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names example update fields ('content', 'is_private') and gives an important format constraint for content (HTML, not Markdown), but it does not explain followup_id or the general structure of update_fields beyond examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Met à jour un suivi existant') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling add_followup. An agent can tell this is an edit operation on an existing followup, not a creation or retrieval call.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (recent factual error corrections) and when to prefer an alternative ('Pour un changement de fond, préférer l'ajout d'un nouveau suivi via add_followup'). The guidance is actionable and names the sibling to use instead.

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