hex-update-suggestion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the mutation. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, whether it is idempotent, or whether it triggers side effects (e.g., a review flow implied by hex-trigger-suggestion-review).

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing 'etc.' is a small imprecision rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on two required parameters, this description is too thin. An agent cannot determine authorization needs, return behavior, or how the update interacts with the suggestion review workflow.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only repeats a subset of the status enum already fully defined in the schema. suggestionId — the other required parameter — is never explained, and the 'etc.' truncation omits IN_PROGRESS/RESOLVED that the schema lists.

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 (Update) and resource (suggestion status), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling hex-update-suggestion-change, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hex-update-suggestion-change or hex-trigger-suggestion-review, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must guess the workflow context entirely.

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