roiq_update_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (change status) but does not mention auth requirements, reversibility, or side effects. For a simple update, this is adequate but minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It instantly conveys the action, resource, and typical use cases. Optimal length for this simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and few siblings, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it. However, it could mention the return value or that the proposal object is updated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the status parameter with real-world examples (e.g., 'done' after execution). The id parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already defines it. The examples compensate for the lack of explicit parameter docs.

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 tool changes the status of a proposal, using a specific verb and resource. It provides concrete examples ('done', 'rejected') and distinguishes from sibling tools like roiq_get_proposal (read) or roiq_list_pending (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?

The description gives practical usage context (after executing, or to reject) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions. It implies appropriate scenarios, which is helpful but not comprehensive.

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