add_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the comma-separated format for item_ids but omits any information about authentication, side effects, error handling, or what the response will be, which is important for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence that immediately states the action and optional parameter format; every word is necessary.

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?

Given the two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameter meaning, but it fails to mention return behavior or prerequisites such as an active project, leaving some gaps for a create-oriented tool.

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 schema descriptions are tautological ('content parameter', 'item_ids parameter'), so the description's mention that content is the progress update text and item_ids are comma-separated item IDs provides essential meaning for both parameters, exceeding the negligible schema value.

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 the specific verb 'Add' with the resource 'progress update' and notes optional linking to items, clearly distinguishing this from read tools like get_updates and mutation tools like advance_status.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_updates or add_decision; it simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues.

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