update-state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing state' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid state_id), or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with the core action ('Update an existing state') and includes just enough context ('in a project'). There's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a state' means in this context (workflow state? project state?), doesn't mention behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and provides no guidance on usage. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters including optional fields and enum values for 'group'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't mention any parameters at all). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing state in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create-state' and 'delete-state' by specifying it updates existing states rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the state can be updated beyond the generic term.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this updates states (unlike 'create-state' or 'delete-state'), there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing state ID), constraints, or comparison to similar update tools like 'update-issue' or 'update-label'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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