Edit Tracker queue version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the PATCH-style semantics that only fields present in body are modified, but says nothing about auth needs, side effects on related versions, or rate limits.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the change semantics and return note. No filler, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema: the description confirms a version is returned but does not describe its shape, and gives no guidance on validation or error behavior. Adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent acting on the result.

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%, with each body field (name, due_date, start_date, description) documented inline and version_id's origin noted. The description only restates the partial-update rule, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Edit a queue version') and clarifies the partial-update contract. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like tracker_queues_versions_create or tracker_queues_versions_delete, relying on the name to carry that discrimination.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. create, delete, or get for a version), nor on prerequisites such as permission requirements or where version_id comes from. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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