Update communication

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it never mentions the 'confirm' approval gate, permission requirements, reversibility, or partial-update semantics for a multi-field mutation.

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 listing the mutable fields with no filler. Efficient, though the inline parenthetical enum is slightly compressed versus a structured field list.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the editable field set but is silent on the required identifier, the confirm gate, and the result of the write. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition but with clear gaps.

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 only 13% (just 'confirm'), so the description must compensate; it enumerates six of the eight fields and gives the status enum values inline. However it omits the required communicationId and the maintenanceType enum values, and gives no format hints for summary/description, so compensation is partial.

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 (Change) and resource (maintenance report/conversation) plus the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling update_task, delete_communication, or get_communication, leaving the agent to infer scope from the field list 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling delete_communication/get_communication alternatives. An agent must guess from the field list whether this is the right tool for a given editing request.

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