Edit Tracker queue macro

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key partial-update contract that only fields set in body are changed, so unspecified macro attributes are preserved. It also confirms the return value is the updated macro. It does not mention permission requirements for editing a queue macro.

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?

Three short clauses with zero filler, and the core edit semantics are front-loaded before the id-sourcing hint. Appropriately sized for a simple PATCH tool.

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?

With full schema coverage, no output schema needed, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of permission or scope requirements for editing a macro in a given queue.

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%, including the nested body object fields (body, name, issue_update) and the case-sensitive queue_id semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's only parameter-related statement duplicates the schema's own PATCH note, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (Edit) and specific resource (queue macro), which cleanly separates it from the sibling macros_list/get/create/delete tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, but the resource scope is 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?

The description gives one concrete routing hint, telling the agent to obtain macro_id from macros_list, which is genuinely useful prerequisite guidance. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance or distinction from macros_create/delete beyond the verb.

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