reqs_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it explains that notes replace stored notes wholesale, meta_update merges last and wins collisions, and passing both is neither an error nor a refusal. It also documents that the precedence is deliberate and that no third writer exists.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the genuinely complex notes/meta_update interaction. The bulleted Args list keeps it scannable, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 nine-argument mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is complete: every parameter is documented, update and replacement semantics are explicit, and the most confusing collision behavior is fully resolved. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable.

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 is the only semantic source for all nine parameters. It lists every argument, enumerates valid status and priority values, and explains the replacement/merge/collision behavior for notes, tags, and meta_update. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation ('Update'), a concrete resource ('a requirement'), and the targeted facets ('status, description, or metadata'). This makes the tool immediately distinguishable from sibling read/create tools like reqs_get, reqs_query, and reqs_add.

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 gives clear usage context for the tricky parameters: meta_update is the 'repair path for a key no other argument can write,' and it explicitly contrasts this tool with the findings `update` tool by noting there is no append_note. It does not spell out all alternatives, but the update-vs-add distinction is obvious.

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