update_initiative

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

Although annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context such as partial update semantics, required permissions, or return value. It merely states the action without disclosing any behavior beyond what the annotations provide, so it does not meet the bar for adding value.

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 words. It states the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no usage or behavioral details, this description is severely inadequate. It gives no information about what fields can be updated, how the update behaves, or what the response contains, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'by ID', which is redundant given the required initiative_id in the schema. The other 7 parameters (lead, name, state, end_date, logo_props, start_date, description_html) have no explanation in either the schema or the description, providing no added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'initiative' and scoping phrase 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_initiative, retrieve_initiative, and delete_initiative, meeting the 5-point criteria for specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing initiative, nor does it contrast with create_initiative or retrieve_initiative. There is no context or exclusions, so it earns a 2 for lacking any usage direction.

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