update_workstream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It adds some behavioral context by indicating this is a manual update action and enumerating statuses. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes meaning: the first states what is updated, the second explains when and why. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or whether it performs any confirmation. It only describes inputs and use cases, leaving the agent uncertain about the update response or error behavior. For a mutation tool of moderate complexity, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'status, next_action, or blockers' and example statuses, but these are already present in the schema. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('workstream') and names the exact fields affected ('status, next_action, or blockers'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'workstreams' (likely listing) and 'search' by focusing on mutation. The additional use case ('mark as completed/paused/abandoned') reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to manually mark a workstream as completed/paused/abandoned, or to update progress notes.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, though no sibling tool appears to offer similar functionality.

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