Update Request

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

No annotations are provided and the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not what fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether existing values not supplied are preserved, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a mutation tool with entirely undisclosed behavior.

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 single sentence is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it omits everything an agent needs, so brevity here is a liability, not an asset.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested, undocumented body object, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling update tools, the description is completely inadequate to call it correctly.

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% across both required parameters. The description does not explain request_id format or, more critically, the free-form nested `body` object (additionalProperties with no documented shape), which is the main semantic gap an agent needs filled.

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?

"Update a request" restates the tool name and title without adding a verb-resource distinction beyond the obvious. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like update_request_note, update_request_task, or update_change, so an agent must guess which "update" applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when-not to use this in favor of close_request, assign_request, or save_request_draft. The description provides zero routing help.

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