roadmap_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that resolving triggers progress roll-up and that zero/empty values leave fields unchanged. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main action and parameters, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and there are only 4 simple parameters with no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior: what fields can be updated, how to partially update, and a key side effect (progress roll-up). It could mention error handling or validation, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by specifying valid ranges for priority (1..5) and status ('open'/'resolved'), and explaining the reparenting action. However, it does not describe the default values or the required entry_id parameter explicitly.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'roadmap node', and lists specific actions (set priority, reparent, set status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like roadmap_add_node (add) and roadmap_view (view), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs 'Pass only what you want to change (0/empty = leave as is)', which is key usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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