update

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool mutates a request (write operation), but does not address destructive effects (e.g., cancel), authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points for modes, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers mode-specific parameters adequately but lacks information about return values (despite having an output schema), error conditions, or safety warnings. For a tool with 8 parameters and 5 modes, more high-level guidance is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining which parameters are required for each mode (e.g., choice for confirm, doi for repoint). However, the id parameter is not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Mutate a request' and enumerates specific modes (confirm, repoint, flag, priority, cancel), each with a distinct purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (status, submit, submit_file) which handle different operations.

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 by detailing each mode and required parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides clear context for usage but lacks exclusion guidelines.

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