update_story

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the requirement of WRITE_ENABLED, which is a useful operational detail but does not elaborate on side effects, return values, or failure modes.

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 sentence that packs essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the technical requirement is appended efficiently.

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 simple update tool with basic annotations and no output schema, the description covers the minimum viable information. It could be improved by noting that the fields parameter expects valid agile story fields, or by referencing common error scenarios.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (sys_id and fields). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of 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 verb 'Update' and resource 'agile story', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from create_story (creation) and get_story (retrieval) by focusing on modification of existing stories.

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 a precondition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), offering some guidance on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_incident or update_problem, missing clear usage vs. alternatives.

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