update_importance_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates that only provided fields are changed (PATCH semantics), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify authentication needs, idempotency, or side effects such as what happens to omitted fields.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise with no superfluous text, but lacks structured breakdown of key details like parameters or usage context.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., need for valid projectId and importanceLevelId). The tool's integration with a project context is implied but not stated.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any parameter by name or clarify their roles (e.g., which fields are updatable). While parameter names like projectId and importanceLevelId are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'partially update an importance level' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_importance_level, delete_importance_level, get_importance_level, etc., by highlighting the PATCH method and partial update behavior.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of importance level, required project context) or scenarios where partial update is preferred over full replacement.

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