update_request_item

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

The description adds the behavioral context that the operation requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is not provided by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It does not contradict annotations. It could mention more about side effects or return behavior, but the permission requirement is valuable.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical prerequisite. It is front-loaded and every word contributes. No unnecessary information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides the permission requirement but lacks information about return values or success/failure behavior. It is adequate but could be more complete by describing what the tool returns or any side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing some editable fields (stage, assignment, work notes). It does not provide additional syntactic or format details beyond the schema.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'requested item', and specifies the fields that can be updated (stage, assignment, work notes). It also notes a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_request_item or get_request_item.

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 mentions the prerequisite WRITE_ENABLED=true, which gives context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_incident, update_task) or when not to use it.

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