aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 'USER WRITE' profile, the prerequisite of an open write gate, that changes persist with an audit event in the NeedFix store, and that a delta receipt is returned. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. missing or archived needfix_id, closed gate behavior) or whether unspecified fields are left untouched, which the schema only implies via defaults.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the write profile and the field scope before the sibling routing. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool the essentials are present: mutability boundary, gate prerequisite, persistence/audit side effects, and the sibling split for status changes. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown/archived item, partial updates on null fields).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including clamping and length limits. The description's field enumeration mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax or validation detail, and it never mentions include_item or needfix_id semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (NeedFix item) plus the exact field families affected (content and classification). It also names the two adjacent sibling tools (transition, capture) so the agent can distinguish this tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly enumerates which edits belong here (title, description, scope, kind, severity, tags, readiness_score) and routes lifecycle changes to aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_transition and creation to aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_capture. Both alternatives and their selection conditions are given.

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