h1_update_report_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a mutation action and a precondition ('unsubmitted'), but omits details such as permissions, whether the update is a full replacement, side effects on other fields, or error/response behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 zero filler. It earns its place by conveying both the action and a key constraint, making it highly concise and structured.

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 with no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., ownership, status checks), the nature of the update, or expected outcomes. The simplicity of the schema reduces the need for extensive detail, but the description remains thin on behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having basic descriptions ('Report intent ID' and 'Vulnerability details'). These are somewhat tautological but do convey meaning. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an unsubmitted report intent' uses a specific verb with a clearly identified resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like h1_create_report_intent, h1_delete_report_intent, and h1_submit_report_intent by focusing on the update action and the 'unsubmitted' state.

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 'unsubmitted' qualifier provides clear context for when this tool applies, implying it should not be used for already submitted intents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the alternatives evident.

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