update_epic

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It provides allowed values for state and status, which is helpful, but does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether null fields are ignored or set to null), required permissions, or side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an update operation.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Update an epic' and compactly lists the valid values for state and status. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 2 of which are required, yet the description only addresses two. It omits vital usage context like partial vs. full updates, the role of required fields, and the meaning of ambiguous parameters. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description's enum values for state and status add some meaning. However, the other nine parameters (e.g., track_cards, assignee_id, due_on) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 updates an epic, identifying the specific resource and action. It distinguishes from create_epic and get_epic by using 'update', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling update tools like update_project or update_sprint.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when updating is appropriate (e.g., after fetching an epic), no conditions that would favor other tools, and no warnings about when not to use it.

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