update_project_estimate_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates an estimate point and gives a value length constraint, but it does not explain whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, what permissions are required, or what errors may occur. Some behavioral context is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 tight docstring with a one-line summary followed by a labeled Args list and a Returns line. Every line is informative and the structure is easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it an efficient tool description.

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 all parameters and the return value, and an output schema exists. However, given no annotations and 8 parameters, it lacks explicit update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement behavior) and any usage guidance relative to sibling tools. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves notable gaps for full contextual understanding.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters. It adds meaningful detail beyond the raw schema, such as clarifying that project_id/estimate_id/estimate_point_id are UUIDs, that value is a display string with max 20 chars and examples ('XL', '13'), and that key is an integer sort key. This turns raw property names into actionable semantics.

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 opens with 'Update a single estimate point', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_project_estimate_points and delete_project_estimate_point, as well as from update_project_estimate which targets the estimate rather than the point.

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 'update' and the singular 'estimate point' resource, but the description does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as create or delete estimate points, nor does it state when to prefer this over update_project_estimate. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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