update_feature_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a 'suggested_commit message string' and mentions auto-advancement of next_action, which are valuable behavioral details. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, or error handling for invalid 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The examples are helpful but could be more concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the examples more clearly from the usage guidance.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters with nested objects) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose and gives usage examples but doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or the format of the return value beyond 'suggested_commit message string'.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds some value through the examples that show how parameters combine in practical use cases, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('update', 'mark', 'advance') and resources ('feature spec', 'tasks', 'criteria', 'spec status', 'next_action'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_feature_spec' and 'get_feature_spec' by focusing on updating existing specs rather than creating or retrieving them.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('after completing work described in a spec task') and offers examples of specific use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use create_feature_spec vs. update_feature_spec).

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