Epics: Update

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Only provide fields to update,' implying partial update behavior. However, it does not disclose further traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on validation errors. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences. Every word is purposeful: 'Update an epic' defines the action, 'Only provide fields to update' gives a critical usage note. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 the 14 parameters and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention the return value, error scenarios, or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Annotations and schema cover much, but a brief note on expected output (e.g., 'Returns the updated epic') would improve completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (baseline 3). The description adds value by stating 'Only provide fields to update,' which clarifies the partial update pattern and reduces the need to send all optional fields. This semantic hint improves parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Update an epic,' which directly indicates the action (update) and the resource (epic). This distinguishes it from siblings like epics-create (create new), epics-delete (remove), and epics-search (find). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes 'Only provide fields to update,' which implicitly guides the agent to perform partial updates rather than sending the full object. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, the hint is valuable and the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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