tracker_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the operation returns the updated tracked job and that reminder_at must be in the future. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full overwrites, nor does it explain any irreversibility or side effects beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a compact input list, and an output note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting enhances readability for an agent.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters with complete schema documentation and an output schema. The description fills the remaining gaps by specifying the correct ID to use, flagging potential ID confusion, and providing formatting examples, making it fully actionable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by clarifying the tracked_job_id provenance (distinct from trackable.id and job.id), giving a concrete example for tags, and stressing the future-date requirement for reminder_at, which goes beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb ('Updates details') with a clear resource ('tracked job') and enumerates the affected fields (notes, deadline, salary, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracker_update_status, which presumably handles status changes.

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 clear context on what this tool updates and emphasizes the correct ID source (trackedJobs[].id from tracker_list) while cautioning against confusing it with other IDs. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like tracker_update_status, but the field scope strongly implies the intended use.

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