update_scrum_task

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations. The description does not elaborate on other behaviors like return values or side effects.

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 sentence with no fluff. It conveys the essential information (action, resource, prerequisite) efficiently. Every word is justified.

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?

The tool is simple (update with two parameters) and no output schema exists. The description provides the prerequisite but lacks details about return values, possible errors, or behavior when fields are invalid. Given the simplicity, it is somewhat complete but could be improved.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its two parameters (sys_id, fields) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'scrum task', and adds a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_task or update_story, which have similar names and purposes.

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 only usage guidance is the WRITE_ENABLED requirement. There is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for scrum tasks specifically vs generic update_record). No exclusions or context are provided.

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