FogBugz

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that it updates 'existing' cases (implying caseId is required) and provides concrete examples of field changes. It also mentions API limitations (plain text only for description, no HTML/Markdown), which isn't covered by annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides concrete, relevant examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and destructive annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, examples of use, and API constraints. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or updated case data), which is a minor gap given the context.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions examples like changing title or milestone, which align with schema fields but don't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing FogBugz case') with specific examples of what can be changed (title, milestone, comment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_case (for new cases) and close_case/reopen_case/resolve_case (for state changes).

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 implies usage context through examples (changing title, moving to milestone, adding comments), which suggests this is for modifying case properties. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like assign_case (for reassignment) or close_case (for state transitions), nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions.

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