Add or update a transition architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavior: warns when standalone viability or a disposal plan is missing. However, it omits other significant behaviors such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens on validation failure, and what the response contains. This is adequate but leaves room for more transparency.

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 compact—two bilingual sentences—with the core action stated first. Every clause adds meaningful information: the resource, the add/update distinction, and the warning behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core add/update semantics and one warning but leaves out important context: whether an active engagement is required, how updates affect unspecified fields, and what the tool returns. The complexity is high enough that these omissions make the description only partially complete.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the id parameter's dual role ('id を渡すと更新、省略で新規') and by calling out the two business-critical fields standalone and disposalPlan through the warning behavior. This pushes it above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a transition architecture (intermediate state) to the engagement.' It also distinguishes the two modes of the tool—'Pass an id to update, omit it to add'—so the agent understands exactly what action it performs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_work_package or remove_roadmap_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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when saving or updating a transition architecture for an engagement. It explicitly explains how to choose between add and update via presence of id. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough among siblings that this is a minor gap.

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