ruddur_update_heading

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description carries less burden. It adds the authorization requirement (scope: content.manage) but does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, nor how cover asset and canvas style fields behave. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The description is two sentences long, states the core purpose immediately, and includes the essential scope requirement without filler. Every sentence contributes value, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is an update tool with a generic open body schema, yet the description does not explain which fields can be updated, whether the operation patches or replaces the resource, or what the response looks like. Given the existence of specialized sibling update tools (tags, status), the lack of boundary clarification makes it incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the id or body fields. The generic body guidance about waypoints appears in the schema itself and is not specific to this tool, so the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (Update) and the resource (Heading), with additional targets (cover asset, canvas style) that distinguish it from sibling tools like update_heading_tags and update_heading_status. However, the phrase 'Heading, cover asset, or canvas style' is slightly ambiguous about whether these are separate update targets or aspects of a single heading.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_heading_tags or update_heading_status. It mentions the required scope (content.manage) as a prerequisite but offers no exclusions, decision criteria, or references to sibling tools.

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