Update Component

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses important partial-update semantics and the special behavior of `clear_lead`. It does not discuss version-conflict failure behavior, but that is fully covered by the well-described `version` parameter in the schema.

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 that states the action, resource, editable fields, and the most important update semantics. The parenthetical Russian term adds a useful domain cue, and there is no redundant wording.

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 that all seven parameters have rich schema-level descriptions and an output schema exists, the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It provides the high-level behavioral context an agent needs to understand that this is a partial-update operation on an existing component.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the cross-cutting rule that omitted fields retain their values and that `clear_lead` is the explicit removal mechanism, complementing the per-parameter schema documentation without repeating it.

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 names a specific verb ('Change'), a precise resource ('Yandex Tracker queue component'), and enumerates the exact fields that can be modified. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like component_create, component_get, and component_delete.

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 clearly frames this as an update to an existing component and states the central usage rule that omitted fields keep their value, with `clear_lead` as an explicit removal mechanism. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the mutation semantics make it clear this is for updating rather than creating, reading, or deleting.

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