Update Defect

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate that. It adds value by explaining null handling: 'Fields set to null/None are left unchanged.' This clarifies idempotent behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides a critical usage rule. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, required fields, and null behavior. No gaps remain for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a behavioral constraint not present in the schema: at least one field must be provided beyond defect_id. This compensates for the schema's lack of that constraint.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('existing defect'), and the specific fields that can be updated (name, description, or status). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_defect, get_defect, and delete_defect.

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 key usage condition: 'At least one field must be provided.' It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the condition is helpful. A more explicit comparison or exclusion would warrant a 5.

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