update_meeting_outcome

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the OpenProject version requirement and the internal server error caused by invalid kind values, but it does not explain what an update overwrites or what gets destroyed.

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 short and front-loads the core action, followed by version and kind constraints. The enum note is useful but slightly verbose; overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the version prerequisite and kind validation, but omits what fields are actually updateable and how partial updates behave. The schema does provide confirm and work_package_id descriptions, which reduces the burden, but notes and outcome_id remain undocumented.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates for just one parameter by documenting the allowed kind values and their rejection behavior. It does not add meaning for notes or outcome_id, and the required outcome_id has no description in either the schema or the description.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Update a meeting outcome." It is distinguishable from siblings such as delete_meeting_outcome and create_meeting_outcome by the verb, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 includes a version prerequisite (OpenProject 17.6+) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_meeting_outcome, delete_meeting_outcome, or other update tools. The kind enum constraint is usage-relevant but does not explain when to choose this tool.

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