update_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' and 'existing', without explaining whether the entire outline is replaced, whether partial updates are supported, what happens if the project does not exist, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 one clean sentence with no filler, and the action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Even with full schema coverage, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. An agent would not know whether the outline is overwritten wholesale, whether the operation is reversible, or what a successful update returns. Additional behavioral context is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents projectId and outline. The description adds no further parameter semantics, such as the required structure of outline pages or whether the update is a full replacement.

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 action ('Update') on a specific resource ('an existing project outline'), and 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from generate_outline, which creates a new outline. It also differentiates it from the get/list and image-generation siblings.

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 implies this tool should be used when an outline already exists and needs modification, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus generate_outline, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage guidance is left mostly to inference.

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