executions_update

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that done executions are read-only, the 'state' field is silently ignored, and the endpoint guard differs between public and internal API. However, it does not explain how other fields behave on update (e.g., partial vs full replacement) or what response to expect.

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 brief with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's action, and subsequent sentences add critical constraints without unnecessary detail. No redundancy.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral constraints but lacks parameter explanations and return value information. Could be more comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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 14%, yet the description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond the 'id' requirement. It mentions 'state' which is not in the schema, leaving the purpose of parameters like 'order', 'statusId', etc., 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?

The description states 'Update execution' and specifies that it cannot update 'state' or executions in 'state: DONE'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by directing to alternate endpoints for state changes. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from other update-like siblings.

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 states when not to use: executions in 'state: DONE' are read-only, and for the 'state' field, alternative endpoints are provided ('/v1/executions-run', etc.). This offers clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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