Update an Operations lane

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: absent fields are left untouched, so updating one field never blanks another seat's note. That directly supports safe partial updates.

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 front-loaded with the fields being recorded and is only three sentences long. Each sentence adds useful information: what to record, partial-update safety, and how to handle the light field honestly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important operational behavior: partial updates, field intent, and the context_doc handoff purpose. Required fields and lane format are left to the schema, which is reasonable, but agent_id and priority semantics remain lightly covered.

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 50%, so the description needs to add meaning. It does so for the main fields: context_doc is explained as the markdown holding the longer story, comment is described as short, and light gets semantic guidance about not marking green without checking. It does not explain priority range or agent_id, but it meaningfully compensates for much of the schema gap.

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 clearly identifies the fields being recorded on an Operations lane: traffic light, priority, comment, and context_doc. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as claim_lane, release_lane, or list_lanes, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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: record findings so the next seat inherits context. The description also gives a useful light-specific caution, but it does not say when to choose update_lane over claim_lane, release_lane, list_lanes, or other lane-related siblings.

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