update_mitigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the batch capability, the requirement that each batch item include 'id', and that it returns 'A confirmation message.' However, it does not clarify partial-update semantics, validation of field values, or error behavior for invalid IDs, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, Arg list, and Returns section. It is slightly redundant (the first and second paragraphs restate the same purpose), and the Args list is long, but it remains organized and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the main modes, parameters, and return type, but it does not explicitly state that either 'id' (single) or 'items' (batch) must be provided, despite neither being marked required in the schema. It also lacks details on field value constraints and batch item structure beyond requiring 'id,' which leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the single vs batch modes, marking 'id' as required for single mode, and clarifying that 'items' is an optional list for batch updates. While some field descriptions are minimal ('New content', 'New type'), the mode-specific context provides significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 an existing mitigation' and 'updates one or more existing mitigations in the threat model.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_mitigation, delete_mitigation, and list_mitigations.

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 gives clear operational guidance for both single and batch modes: 'For single item: provide id and fields to update directly' and 'For batch: provide a list of mitigation dicts in the items parameter.' This communicates when to use the tool and how to structure calls, though it does not explicitly contrast with add/delete tools.

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