Update Version

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: partial-update semantics, the cascading rewrite of version/target_version/fixed_in_version on referencing issues, the released/timestamp coupling, and the exact 'Version not found' error condition for inherited versions.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each front-loaded and dedicated to one concern (core semantics, rename side effect, released/timestamp interaction, ownership/access). No filler sentences despite the density of information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent the call returns the updated version object, and it covers permissions, inheritance constraints, and cross-field traps. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter docs already carry the baseline. The description adds genuine cross-field semantics the schema cannot express — that name changes cascade to issues and that setting released=true leaves the date untouched unless timestamp is also passed.

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 and resource ('Update an existing version of a MantisBT project') and immediately scopes it as a partial update. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling release_version tool by contrasting their behavior.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not routing: use release_version if you want released=true plus the date set, use get_project_versions with inherit=false to list alterable versions, and call through the parent project_id for inherited versions. It also names the required access level (manage_project_threshold, default manager).

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