update_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. However, the description adds no behavioral detail—no partial vs full update semantics, effects of null fields, permissions, or response behavior. It does not contradict annotations but offers no extra 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, short sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters. It is terse rather than appropriately concise, omitting essential context that the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, annotations are minimal, and the input schema has 10 parameters. A one-sentence description is insufficient to explain return values, required context, or update behavior, making correct invocation unlikely.

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%, and the description only mentions 'by ID' without identifying state_id/project_id or any of the 8 optional fields. With 10 parameters and no parameter-level explanation, the agent cannot infer what properties can be updated.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('state'), and the 'by ID' gives a scoping hint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_state, delete_state, and retrieve_state, though it does not enumerate which fields can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention create_state/delete_state, exclude scenarios, or state prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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