Edit Tracker priority

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description goes beyond them by disclosing partial-update semantics ("only the fields set in body are changed") and the optimistic-locking contract via version, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what the response contains or what happens on a version conflict.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, then the two parameter caveats. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter partial-update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, the id requirement, and the concurrency guard. Missing only edge behavior (version-conflict result, whether any fields are immutable), which is minor at this complexity.

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% (every property and the nested body object are documented), so the baseline is 3. The description does add useful meaning for priority_id and version, but its claim that priority_id is "the numeric id (not the key)" directly conflicts with the schema's own text "Priority id or key, from priorities_list", which could cause a caller to reject valid key inputs.

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 an issue priority", and clarifies the scope of the edit (only fields set in body change). It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious siblings tracker_priorities_create / tracker_priorities_list, so an agent must infer it is the update half of the priority CRUD set. The phrase "issue priority" is also slightly loose for what is really a priority-dictionary entity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The only routing-adjacent information is implicit (you edit an existing priority rather than creating one). An agent gets no statement of prerequisites, permission requirements, or when to prefer create/list over update.

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