update_problem

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive nature. The description adds a behavioral constraint (WRITE_ENABLED=true) that is not in annotations, providing useful context beyond the structured fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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 waste. Every word adds value, specifying the action, resource, and a key condition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, with annotations covering safety and idempotency, and schema fully describing parameters, the description is adequate. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but these are not critical for this use case.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'key-value pairs' is already present). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb ('update') and the resource ('existing problem'), clearly distinguishing it from create_problem or resolve_problem. It also notes a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which helps in deciding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it to similar sibling tools like update_record or update_incident, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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