Edit Tracker filter

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the PATCH partial-update semantics ('only the fields set in body are changed') and that it returns the updated filter. It omits the notable gotcha that the nested 'filter' object is replaced wholesale, but that detail lives in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core action and its partial-update caveat are front-loaded, followed by the id lookup hint. No filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description covers action, update semantics, id sourcing, and return behavior. Nothing critical is missing, though it could have surfaced the 'filter is replaced wholesale' warning at the top level.

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 both 'filter_id' and the nested body fields are already documented, including the wholesale replacement of 'filter'. The description's note about filter_id's origin largely restates the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a saved issue filter'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/create/delete filter tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the edit semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: obtain 'filter_id' from 'filters_get' or the Tracker UI, which is actionable routing guidance. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance, but the context is clear.

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