update_problem

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

The description adds a useful prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) that is not in the annotations. However, annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the update behavior is expected. No additional effects, errors, or response details are disclosed, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 unnecessary words. It clearly states the action, target, and a critical prerequisite without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and the schema covers parameters. It does not describe return values, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Both parameters (sys_id and fields) are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not add new parameter semantics. The schema already documents sys_id as 'System ID of the problem' and fields as 'Key-value pairs to update'.

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 'existing problem', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_problem and resolve_problem. It also specifies the scope (existing problem, fields) without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to update fields on an existing problem. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing problem' phrasing implies it is not for creation or resolution, and the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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