Upsert an issue document

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, not read-only, and not destructive. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and authorization class 'board_or_agent', which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details like what fields are required, conflict resolution behavior, or side effects.

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 very short (2 sentences) and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details. While no fluff, it fails to provide enough information for effective use.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (2 required nested parameters, output schema exists but unused), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'upsert' entails, how to specify the document body or key, or what the output looks like. The missing parameter explanations and usage context leave significant 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?

Schema coverage is 0%: the description does not explain any parameters. The input schema has nested objects (path, body) with required fields (id, key, format, body) and optional ones (title, changeSummary, baseRevisionId). The description provides zero guidance on how to populate these parameters, making it very hard for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the verb 'Upsert' and the resource 'issue document', and includes the HTTP method and path. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like pc_get_issues_by_id_documents_by_key (read) or pc_delete_issues_by_id_documents_by_key (delete), missing an opportunity to clarify when to use upsert over other document 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the operation and authorization class, but does not provide context for appropriate usage, such as prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist) or when not to use it.

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