needfix_update

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains None-field retention, mutual exclusivity of evidence and evidence_patch, server-side JSON merge patch semantics, list add/remove behavior, optimistic concurrency with a specific stale-error code, and kind synonym normalization. It also discloses the delta receipt and audit-event 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 dense but appropriately front-loaded for a complex 20-parameter update tool. Most sentences earn their place by explaining non-obvious mutation semantics, though the parenthetical clauses and receipt details make it somewhat heavy.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong coverage of mutation semantics, concurrency behavior, response receipt fields, and audit implications. It does not mention permission requirements or fully enumerate the meaning of every one of the 20 parameters, so it is not completely exhaustive.

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 only 10% across 20 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does for the highest-risk parameters: evidence, evidence_patch, the add/remove list variants, expected_updated_at, and kind normalization. It is less explicit about plain list replacement parameters and scalar fields like readiness_score or description, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Manager update of mutable NeedFix fields." It is clearly an update tool, but "mutable fields" is somewhat vague and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from needfix_add, needfix_show, or the dashboard update sibling.

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 phrase "Manager update" implies the operational context, and the evidence/replace/patch rules give usage constraints. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for cases where add, transition, archive, or dashboard update would be more appropriate.

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