roadmap_update

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that setting status to 'resolved' triggers progress roll-up and that default values (0 or empty) leave fields unchanged. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or error handling, which is acceptable for a simple update but could be more thorough.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first lists updatable fields and their constraints, the second clarifies partial update behavior and the effect of resolving. Every sentence contributes value with no 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 the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers the three optional parameters and the behavioral effect of resolving. However, it omits validation details (e.g., out-of-range priority) and does not mention error conditions, which would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the meaning and allowed values for priority (1..5), parent_id, and status ('open'/'resolved'). It clarifies that 0/empty means 'leave as is', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. The required entry_id is obvious and not mentioned.

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 identifies the tool as updating a roadmap node with specific fields (priority, parent_id, status). It explicitly lists the allowed values and differentiates from sibling tools like roadmap_add_node (creation) and roadmap_view (reading).

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 explicit guidance on partial updates ('Pass only what you want to change') and hints at the impact of resolving a node. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like roadmap_progress or roadmap_block, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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