Update Request

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'mark the record dirty for offline sync', 'mutating but non-destructive', and 'does not call remote APIs', which enriches understanding beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 dense paragraph with efficient front-loading: first sentence states action, then usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behaviors, and side effects (dirty marking, no remote calls). It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial semantics: 'full replacement for those fields, not a sparse patch' for title/body, 'not appended to existing tags' for tags, and 'changing status does not submit or withdraw a remote request' for status. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 specifies 'Replace editable fields on an existing local FYI/Alaveteli request by ID and mark the record dirty for offline sync', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning create_request for new ID and delete_request for removal.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the request already exists and fields changed', and provides alternatives: 'use create_request for a new ID and delete_request to remove'. Also notes it is safe to re-run with same values.

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