put_requirement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile without the description. The description adds the partial-update behavior, which is genuinely useful context. It does not address the tension with destructiveHint=true (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared vs preserved), which is the key behavioral question here.

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 first two sentences are redundant ('Update a requirement. Update a requirement using its unique identifier'), wasting the most prominent position. The remaining content is accurate and front-loaded, but the opening duplication costs a point.

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 output schema and a nested body plus a query relation parameter, the description covers the mutation semantics (partial update) but omits the return behavior and the 'with' query parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema complexity.

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 must compensate, and it names the meaningful body fields (name, description, type, custom fields). It says nothing about the required path.requirementId other than 'unique identifier', nor about the query 'with' relation parameter, leaving real gaps in parameter documentation.

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+resource ('Update a requirement using its unique identifier') and lists the modifiable fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like put_issue, put_test_case, or post_batch_update_requirements, so sibling selection relies on the resource noun alone.

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 usefully explains that it is a partial update ('you only need to include the fields you want to change'), which tells the agent how to build the request. It does not say when to prefer this over post_batch_update_requirements for bulk edits, nor mention any prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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