update_version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: that omitted fields are preserved, and that a rejected validation preview surfaces as a normal result with `ready`/`validation_errors` rather than an MCP error — this prevents the agent from misreading the outcome. It does not say what a destructive update actually destroys (e.g. effects of moving status to 'closed' or changing sharing scope).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then the error-handling caveat. No filler and every sentence carries operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the result fields `ready` and `validation_errors` and explains the two-phase confirm flow. What's missing is the success-path result shape and any note on permissions or the consequences of the destructive flag — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation tool, but not blocking.

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 100%, with all eight parameters documented (enum-ish value lists, ISO date format, 60-char name limit, `""` clearing description). The description adds only the blanket 'omitted fields stay unchanged' rule and nothing per-parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a version'), which contrasts cleanly with siblings create_version, delete_version, get_version and list_versions. It stops short of naming which attributes are mutable, but nothing about the purpose is ambiguous.

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?

'Omitted fields stay unchanged' implies partial-update semantics, and the preview/validation sentence steers the agent toward a confirm-then-apply flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling alternative for creating versus modifying a version.

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