roadmap_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that notes are appended rather than overwritten, but does not mention whether the update is destructive for other fields (e.g., title/description replacement) or discuss permissions and reversibility.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with core purpose and usage patterns. No wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters (2 required, 2 enums) and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and notes behavior. It does not explain return values, but for an update tool that is acceptable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining lifecycle transitions and that notes are appended, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates status, priority, or details of a roadmap item, and explicitly describes lifecycle progression (planned → in-progress → done/blocked/cancelled). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roadmap_add and roadmap_list.

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?

Description provides explicit context for use: moving items through lifecycle and adding notes. It implies when to use but does not mention when not to use or specify alternatives beyond the lifecycle guidance.

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