update_priority

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

Annotations already establish this as a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation requires admin rights and the icon field is immutable, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of describing side effects or the version/concurrency 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the editable field list and followed by the immutability constraint. No wasted words, though the '(admin)' fragment is slightly cryptic.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the essentials are present (admin requirement, immutable icon). However, the purpose of 'version' (likely optimistic locking) and whether name/description are optional is not addressed, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 50% schema coverage, the description names the updatable fields (name, description) and clarifies that the icon is not updatable, partially compensating for the gap. It says nothing about 'version' or 'priorityKey', which the schema only briefly labels, so meaning is only partially added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a priority') and enumerates the editable fields (name, description), distinguishing it from the read-only get_priorities and the create_priority sibling. It does not explicitly name when to prefer it over those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 only usage signal is the parenthetical '(admin)', implying elevated permissions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like create_priority or get_priorities.

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