update_scrum_task

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful gating context by stating WRITE_ENABLED must be true, but says nothing about the effect of omitting fields in the nested update object, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or permission failures.

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?

A single short clause with the prerequisite front-loaded in parentheses and zero redundant words. It is arguably too terse, but no sentence is wasted and nothing needs trimming.

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 partial-update object and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what is returned, how partial field sets are interpreted, and what errors occur when WRITE_ENABLED is false. The WRITE_ENABLED hint is helpful but not sufficient.

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%: sys_id is documented and the nested fields object enumerates the allowed keys (short_description, story, assigned_to). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Update a scrum task"), so an agent knows exactly what is mutated. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_scrum_task, list_scrum_tasks, or the broader update_task, which would require inferring the difference from names alone.

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 only guidance is the enabling prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true); there is no statement of when to choose this over update_task, update_story, or create_scrum_task. Exclusions and task-type selection criteria are entirely absent.

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