Update Workstream

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds return semantics ('Returns a JSON object with id and updated'), no-match behavior, error cases (empty update, unknown status, database failure), and partial-update behavior (omitted fields remain unchanged). This significantly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Three carefully crafted sentences: first states the core action and constraints, second gives return behavior, third exclusions and errors. No redundant phrasing; all content 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?

Covers prerequisites, field constraints, return value, no-match semantics, error conditions, and scope boundaries. Thoroughly complete for a 4-param tool with an output schema, even though the parameter dependency rule is incorrect.

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 description's rule 'At least one of status, next_action, or blockers is required' conflicts with the schema's required array, which mandates status. This misleads agents into thinking they can omit status if another field is provided, contradicting the schema and causing a validation error. Schema coverage is 100%, but the added dependency rule is inaccurate.

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 'Mutates one existing workstream by id,' a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with create/delete and read operations via 'Use workstreams to list/read rows first' and 'does not create or delete workstreams.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like workstreams.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: at least one of status/next_action/blockers required, omitted fields unchanged, and status enum values. It also names the alternative for reading (workstreams) and excludes create/delete operations, making when-to-use clear.

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