Update Shortcut Iteration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the required 'confirm' parameter (CONFIRM_WRITE) or the 'dry_run' option, which are critical for understanding how the tool actually executes mutations. It also omits details about permissions, idempotency, or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly generic ('fields') and omits essential context. While brevity is a virtue, the sentence sacrifices informativeness for simplicity, making it less effective than a slightly longer version that names the key updatable attributes.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the required confirmation token, the dry-run workflow, which fields can be updated, or what the tool returns, leaving an agent without adequate information for safe and correct invocation.

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 10% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description merely says 'Update fields' without listing any specific fields or explaining the meaning of parameters like group_ids, label_ids, follower_ids, or date formats. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema property names, and thus fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Shortcut iteration'), clearly stating that it modifies an existing entity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_iteration, get_iteration, and delete_iteration, which handle creation, retrieval, and deletion respectively.

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 implies usage for updating an existing iteration, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. The context makes it the obvious choice for modifying iterations, yet it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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