update_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It warns that start_date and end_date are required by the API, which is a non-obvious constraint not reflected in the schema (they are listed as optional properties). This adds valuable context about how the API behaves. It does not cover other aspects like response format or auth, but the key gotcha is addressed.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence delivers a crucial warning without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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 the moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the essential context: what the tool does and a key prerequisite. It does not explain the response format, but for an update operation this is less critical. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how to obtain IDs, but that is not a requirement for a basic description. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly stating that start_date and end_date must be included in the update call, even though the schema marks them as optional. This is a significant clarification for correctly invoking the tool.

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's function: 'Update a phase/milestone.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_phase, delete_phase, and list_phases. The purpose is immediately clear without ambiguity.

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 clear operational guidance by highlighting a critical API requirement: 'start_date and end_date are required by the Zoho REST API for updates.' This tells the user when they need to supply additional fields beyond the schema's required ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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