update_initiative

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return type (Updated Initiative object) and a specific error condition (feature disabled), which adds transparency. However, it omits important behavioral details such as whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields left unchanged), required permissions, or any side effects beyond the update. The description provides some context but not complete transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Description, Args, Returns, Raises) and each parameter gets a single concise line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists parameters efficiently. There is no fluff or redundant repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, return type, and a notable error condition. Since an output schema exists, detailed return formatting is not required. The main gap is the lack of explicit statement about partial-update semantics (whether omitted optional fields are ignored or set to null) and any prerequisites like permissions. Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, this omission prevents a perfect score but overall it is quite complete.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It provides a one-line explanation for each of the 8 parameters, including format hints (ISO 8601 for dates, UUID for IDs and lead, HTML for description_html) and an explicit list of valid state values. This is essential value that the schema does not provide, and it fully covers all parameters.

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 'Update an initiative by ID' which is a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('initiative'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling update tools for projects, work items, cycles, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_work_item or update_project. The Raises note about the initiatives feature being disabled is more of an error condition than usage context. It does not state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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