feature_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It explicitly discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: every change is appended to an append-only history stamped with the git commit it was made against. This gives the agent valuable expectations about auditability and mutability beyond the bare 'change' verb, though it does not cover permissions or reversibility.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the audit-history behavior is appended concisely. Every sentence contributes useful 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain partial-update semantics, the intended use of actor/acceptance/note, or what the caller should expect back after invoking the tool. The schema helps, but the combination of high parameter count and lack of output schema leaves significant ambiguity.

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 44%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does add value by naming title, body, and priority as changeable fields, which the schema leaves somewhat opaque. However, it does not clarify the purpose of actor, acceptance, note, or how omitted fields behave during a partial update.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Change a tracked item' and enumerates the mutable fields: status, title, body, or priority. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as feature_propose, feature_list, and feature_history, which are about creating, listing, or inspecting items rather than modifying them.

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 'tracked item' implies this is for modifying an existing item rather than proposing or listing one, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. It does not mention, for example, that feature_propose is the right choice for new items or feature_reassign for reassignment.

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