update_problem

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-schema fact — the WRITE_ENABLED=true setting requirement — but says nothing about partial-update semantics (are unspecified fields left intact?), validation failures, or permission errors, which matter for a 21-field mutation.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical prerequisite is placed where it will be read. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than filling them.

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 mutation tool with a nested 21-property fields object and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not say whether the update is partial or full, what a successful response contains, or how it relates to resolve_problem for state transitions. Only the WRITE_ENABLED gate is communicated.

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 sys_id described as 'System ID of the problem' and fields described as 'Key-value pairs to update', so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about accepted field values (e.g. valid state/priority values, whether comments vs work_notes differ), which is the main ambiguity a caller faces.

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+resource (update fields on an existing problem), which distinguishes it from create_problem and get_problem by implication. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from resolve_problem, which could also mutate a problem's state.

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?

Only the precondition WRITE_ENABLED=true is given; there is no guidance on when to choose this over resolve_problem, update_task, or natural_language_update, nor any 'when not to use' note. The agent has to infer that this is the generic field-mutation tool.

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