update_epic

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation and mentions verbosity levels, but omits critical details like error handling, partial vs full updates, authorization requirements, or what happens if the epic doesn't exist.

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 very short (two sentences), but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and four parameters including the opaque 'kwargs', the description is insufficient. It does not mention output or success/failure indicators, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutation operation.

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 explains verbosity values and session defaults, but the critical 'kwargs' parameter remains unexplained (likely key-value pairs for fields to update). This leaves the agent guessing about acceptable parameters.

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 clearly states it updates an existing epic, distinguishing from create/delete epic tools. However, it doesn't specify which fields can be updated, relying on the ambiguous 'kwargs' parameter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update_issue, update_task). Only the session default behavior is noted, but no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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