update-intake-issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('update') without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, side effects on related data, or error handling. It lacks crucial context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and an enum for priority. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying optional updates, which is already clear from the schema's optional fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing intake issue' clearly states the action (update) and resource (intake issue), but it's vague about what specific fields can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-issue' or 'update-intake-issue' (which appears to be itself). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope.

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 like 'update-issue' or 'convert-to-issue' is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among the many update-related siblings in the list.

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