update_objective

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description usefully explains two traits beyond them — that sub-questions are appended rather than replaced (consistent with non-idempotent) and that assay_kind switches interpretation rules. It omits what happens to fields left null, whether partial updates are possible, and any precondition on analysis_id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation, with the assay_kind caveat second where it belongs. Little waste, though the second sentence is terse enough to be ambiguous about what 'interpretation rules' actually changes.

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 non-idempotent mutation with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but leaves failure modes, partial-update semantics and the required analysis_id unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers five of six parameters (confirmed_objective, biological_context, status, add_subquestions, assay_kind) and adds the key semantic that assay_kind's allowed values change interpretation, but the required analysis_id and the accepted format/values for status remain undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource (updates the objective's confirmed objective / context / status) plus a distinct second capability (appending emergent sub-questions), which maps onto real schema fields. It lacks any contrast with the sibling record_objective, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to call.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative record_objective. The only usage-adjacent statement is that supplying assay_kind switches interpretation rules, which is a behavioral note rather than routing guidance.

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