haops_update_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each update creates a new version and marks the previous as historical, explains partial update semantics (server carries forward unchanged fields), and conditional F3 fields. However, it lacks details on rate limits, exact response structure, or what happens on error.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, front-loading the main purpose. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be trimming redundant phrasing, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested skillsConfig object, F3 feature flags) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers update mechanism, partial updates, role restrictions, and conditional fields. It does not fully specify the return value or error conditions, but the verbose parameter hints at a response structure.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains partial-body update behavior, common usage patterns, and conditional behavior for F3 fields (e.g., templateId carries forward when omitted, skillsConfig can be cleared with null). This provides actionable guidance for parameter usage.

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 tool updates the work protocol for a specific agent role, creating a new version. It uses a specific verb ('Update (create new version of)') and resource ('work protocol'), and distinguishes from siblings like haops_read_protocol and haops_preview_project_protocol by focusing on updates.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: partial-body support, common usage patterns (e.g., rebinding templateId, enabling/disabling skills), and role restrictions (Architect and admin only). It also explains when to pass 'content' versus other fields, giving clear when-to-use context.

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