Update Retrospective Process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — notably it does not say whether `attributes` is a partial patch or a full replace, nor how the `retrospective_process_matching_criteria` union is treated on update.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. The brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, though — nothing here earns its place beyond the tool name.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested request body and an output schema, and the description does not cover the update semantics an agent needs: partial vs full replacement, how matching criteria are replaced, or permission requirements. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else is filled in.

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 50%, and the description's sole parameter contribution is "by id", which the schema already documents in more detail. The nested `data.attributes` object and the anyOf matching-criteria variants (severity_ids vs group_ids vs incident_type_ids) are the semantically risky part and receive no explanation in the description.

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 gives a verb ("Updates") and a resource ("retrospective process") plus the lookup key ("by id"), so the operation is identifiable. However, it adds almost nothing beyond the tool name `update_retrospective_process` and never distinguishes itself from siblings like `create_retrospective_process`, `get_retrospective_process`, or `update_retrospective_process_group`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus `create_retrospective_process` or `update_retrospective_process_group`, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing process id), and no mention of what happens on partial updates. The only implied usage is that an id must already exist.

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