update_use_case

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

The description mentions the key behavioral side effect of propagating staleness to the blueprint, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details such as whether the use case must exist, authorization requirements, or error handling. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 18 words) with the key action upfront and the side effect in the second sentence. Every word is informative.

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?

While the description covers the basic action and one side effect, it lacks information about response format, error conditions, and the nature of the update (partial vs full). Given the nested object parameter and lack of output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to use reliably without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond what the schema provides. No additional semantic information is added.

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 use case fields for a blueprint') and specifies the relationship to the blueprint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_blueprint' by focusing on use case fields.

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 like 'get_use_case' or 'update_blueprint'. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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