haops_update_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'update' (mutation) but does not mention whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, permissions required, or any side effects. This leaves important gaps for agent understanding.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by a specific use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description does not mention return values or what the tool returns (e.g., updated discussion object vs. summary). Given no output schema and no annotations, this omission is significant for agent planning. Also lacks guidance on typical parameter combinations.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds high-level grouping (title, status, etc.) and associates status with resolving/closing, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema's 'e.g., resolved, closed' hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Update' and resource 'discussion properties', lists specific properties (title, status, priority, assignment, locking, pinning), and distinguishes from siblings like create and delete by focusing on modification.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to resolve/close discussions or change metadata,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but implies separation from create/delete tools.

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