Update Defect Matcher

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that at least one field is required, but does not elaborate on specific behaviors like error conditions or result format. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but some added context would improve transparency.

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 at two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action 'Update', making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential purpose and constraint. However, a brief note about idempotency or the effect on existing data could 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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description only mentions 'name or regex patterns', which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'defect matcher', specifying that it modifies name or regex patterns. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_defect_matcher and delete_defect_matcher.

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 notes that at least one field must be provided, giving a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like create_defect_matcher for new matchers.

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