update_follow_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation (updating a follow-up) and describes the field categories (status, priority, due date, notes, snooze). But it doesn't disclose requirements (e.g., whether the follow-up must already exist, error behavior, or ownership/auth requirements). For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would help.

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 concise and front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a compact 4-item bullet list. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly tighter, but it's well-structured and readable.

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 6 parameters (all self-explanatory with enum-like value hints in schema), an output schema exists, and no nested objects. The description's bullet list maps cleanly to the parameters (completed->status, snooze->snooze_until). For a moderately simple update tool with full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. Missing: no mention of partial vs full update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved).

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions for each. The description adds the snooze_until semantic hint (that it sets status to snoozed), but this is also reflected in the schema description. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description complements rather than replaces 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 clearly states 'Update a follow-up item' with a specific verb (update) and resource (follow-up item). It distinguishes from siblings like create_follow_up and complete_follow_up. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from complete_commitment or update_delegation which are separate sibling operations on related concepts.

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 a useful bulleted list of concrete use cases (mark completed, change priority/due date, snooze, add notes), which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives like complete_commitment or when to prefer get_follow_ups for reading. The use-case list effectively serves as guidance but lacks exclusions.

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