tech_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only says 'updates' and gives a status example; it does not state whether omitted fields are preserved, whether nulls clear values, or what side effects the update has.

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?

A single sentence with a concrete usage example. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler; '(R8)' is minor and does not hurt clarity.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this is too thin. It lacks partial-update semantics, nullable-field meaning, and any guidance about which combinations of fields are valid. The output schema may cover return values, but input behavior is underspecified.

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. It only clarifies status='done' (via example) and implies id targets the observation; files, content, summary, and next_steps remain semantically unexplained.

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 the action clearly ('Actualiza una observación') and gives a concrete example (closing a task with status='done'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the update verb plus the observation resource are enough to distinguish it from tech_save, tech_get, and tech_search.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use this when updating an existing observation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternative tools such as tech_save, so an agent must infer tool selection from names and context.

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