update_userstory

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without explaining side effects, permissions required, or the role of the 'version' parameter for optimistic locking. The version parameter description hints at concurrency handling, but the tool description does not mention it.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse to be fully useful, lacking context that could be added without significant verbosity.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, success criteria, or any usage patterns. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats the schema. Undocumented parameters like 'subject', 'description', 'assigned_to', and 'tags' remain unexplained, which could confuse the agent.

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 'Update an existing user story' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating modification of an existing entity. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_userstory, delete_userstory, and get_userstory.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_userstory or get_userstory. No prerequisites or conditions for use are stated, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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