update_epic

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether updating replaces fields, whether null values clear them, or any authorization requirements. It does not contradict the annotations but contributes no incremental 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices useful details and is slightly underwhelming for such a parameter-heavy 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?

This is a complex 19-parameter update tool with no output schema and minimal annotations. The one-sentence description does not list updatable fields, explain optional/nullable behavior, or describe the response. It is severely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% for 19 parameters. The description only mentions 'by ID' and does not name any updatable fields, their types, or formats. This completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Update an epic by ID' clearly states the verb (update), resource (epic), and identifier (ID). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling update tools like update_work_item and update_project.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage through the verb 'update' and does not mention related tools like create_epic, retrieve_epic, or delete_epic.

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