update_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it can modify fields but does not mention whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, any required permissions, destructive outcomes, or the response format. For a mutation operation, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Capabilities' list is somewhat redundant with the initial sentence, but it is short and does not introduce unnecessary detail. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall it remains focused and readable.

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 update operation, the description adequately lists the updatable fields and the context (Yunxiao Project). However, it lacks detail on required fields (e.g., 'name' is required per schema) and does not specify behavior for omitted fields or error conditions. Without annotations or an output schema, it falls short on fully preparing the agent for invocation.

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 marginal value by listing exactly which fields are updatable (name, owners, start date, publish date), which aligns with the schema's properties. However, it does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as data types or constraints, but the coverage already ensures clarity.

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 an existing version in a Yunxiao Project.' It enumerates the specific attributes that can be updated (name, owners, start/publish dates), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_version or delete_version. It is not a tautology and uses a specific verb-resource pair.

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 implies usage through the word 'update' and the listed use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_version, delete_version). No exclusionary guidance exists, so agents might not know when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a basic update scenario.

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