update_version

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an existing version' without detailing mutation behavior, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., notifications on owner change). This is insufficient.

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—two short paragraphs with bullet points for use cases. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently organized, earning its length.

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 7 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to obtain the required IDs, what happens to omitted optional fields, or the return behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond listing fields already defined. It does not provide additional meaning or nuances about parameters, so baseline score applies.

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 tool updates an existing version in a Yunxiao Project, listing specific updatable fields (name, owners, start date, publish date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_version or delete_version.

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 lists use cases but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_version, delete_version). The context is implied but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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