update_queue_macro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds only the list of editable fields; it says nothing about whether this is a partial or full replacement, permission requirements, or what happens when a field is omitted. Adequate but thin 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the tool's action and fields immediately. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is not the failure.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object parameter, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. The agent cannot tell how issueUpdate should be shaped, whether fields are optional, or what the result of the edit is.

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 has to carry the load, and it does name three of the five parameters in prose (name, body as 'comment body', issueUpdate as 'issue updates'). However, the two required identifiers (queueId, macroId) are unmentioned and the nested structure of the issueUpdate object is left entirely unexplained.

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 (Edit) and resource (queue macro) and enumerates the editable facets (name, comment body, issue updates). It is clearly distinguishable from get_queue_macro, create_queue_macro, and delete_queue_macro by the verb alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (an existing macroId/queueId), and no mention of alternatives such as create_queue_macro when the macro does not yet exist. Usage is only inferable from the sibling naming.

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