hex-update-suggestion-change

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. It says 'update' but does not disclose valid status values, required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or what side effects (e.g., re-triggering review) occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a material gap.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no enum for status, and 0% parameter coverage, an agent lacks enough information to invoke this mutation correctly. The description should at minimum enumerate valid status values and note the suggestion/change dependency.

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% across 3 parameters. The description names 'status' but does not enumerate allowed values or explain the relationship between suggestionId and changeId, leaving all three parameters' semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating the status of an individual proposed change within a suggestion. It implicitly distinguishes the granularity from the sibling hex-update-suggestion (whole suggestion vs. individual change), but never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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 over hex-update-suggestion or hex-trigger-suggestion-review, no prerequisites, and no mention of the review workflow context. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and description.

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