seo_roadmap_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists updatable fields and the status enum, but does not state that itemId is required, whether this is a partial update, or what happens if the item does not exist.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential scope without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but without an output schema or annotations the description does not mention return behavior or confirm that itemId is required (though schema marks it). It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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%, and each parameter already has descriptive text (e.g., 'New status', 'Priority integer (lower = higher priority)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating title, status, and priority, and omits brandId entirely.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a roadmap item'), and lists the updatable fields (title, status, priority), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_roadmap_delete or seo_roadmap_get.

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?

Usage is implied ('Edit a roadmap item') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., use seo_roadmap_delete to remove) is given. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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