update_epic

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

The description explicitly discloses the default dry-run behavior and the need for user confirmation, which is beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also clarifies label behavior in the schema. This adds significant transparency.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences covering the essential purpose and the critical dry_run behavior. No wasted words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value (preview vs. actual update result) or error conditions. The schema covers parameters, but overall context is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter details beyond the schema; the schema descriptions are already thorough. The tool description only mentions the dry_run parameter behavior.

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 'Mettre a jour un epic existant' (update an existing epic) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_epic' and 'update_epic_note' by context, but does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance on using dry_run=true by default and setting it to false after confirmation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or when to call list_groups first.

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