yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_requirement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the operation preserves other requirements and slots, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, expected_version semantics, error conditions, or what happens on conflict. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key guarantee. However, it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way; the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Still, the structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (nested requirement object, three required parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain versioning, the meaning of expected_version, the structure of acceptance criteria, or any failure modes. An agent would lack critical information needed to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention spec_id, expected_version, or the requirement object's fields beyond what the schema already defines. The description adds no semantic meaning to any parameter, leaving agents to guess at the role of expected_version and the structure of requirement.

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 states a clear verb (create/update), resource (one typed requirement with acceptance criteria), and adds a specific detail (preserves every other requirement and slot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upsert_slots or delete_requirement by its scope, but does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous, though it could be sharper about when to choose this over similar tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools such as yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slots or yaaif_agent_spec_delete_requirement. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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