update_item

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description doesn't explain what updating entails—whether missing fields are reset, side effects, or permission needs. With openWorldHint=true, more disclosure is expected, but none is given.

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 only three words, which is concise in length, but it's under-specified—it sacrifices necessary context. Effective conciseness would front-load key information while still covering essential details; this description fails to do that.

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 tool with 32 parameters, no output schema, and relatively sparse annotations, a one-line description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the update workflow, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it 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?

With 32 parameters and only 41% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. It doesn't highlight that article_id is required, nor does it clarify any of the many optional fields, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema descriptions 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 'Edit an item' specifies the verb and resource, but it is vague—'item' is a generic domain object, and it doesn't clarify which aspects of the item can be edited or how this differs from other item-related tools. It distinguishes from siblings like update_item_position only at a high resource level, not through detailed scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_item, delete_item, or search_items. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the item existing, nor does it explain the context in which updating an item is appropriate.

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