Update an Evergreen queue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the optimistic-concurrency rule (stale version rejected, concurrent edits not overwritten), but it does not clarify whether unspecified fields are left untouched or what destructive replacement of the variant set entails.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The update scope is front-loaded and the version workflow requirement follows immediately, so the most operative detail is not buried.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key field categories, and the concurrency contract. However, with 12 parameters at 8% schema coverage, the missing timeZone and partial-update semantics leave real ambiguity about what a call actually changes.

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 only 8% across 12 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It maps several fields to business terms (cadence, review policy, expiry, name, caption-variant set) and explains the version parameter, but timeZone and the enum meanings (scheduleMode, reviewPolicy) are never addressed, leaving substantial gaps.

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 gives a specific verb and resource and enumerates the updatable surfaces (cadence, review policy, expiry, name, caption-variant set), which lets an agent distinguish it from create/activate/pause/resume siblings by name alone. It stops short of explicitly routing to those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite workflow: pull the current version via get_evergreen_queue and pass it, because stale versions are rejected. That is real when-to-use guidance. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g., use activate/pause/resume for state changes rather than this tool).

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