authoring-update-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update guarantee ('only the fields named are touched'), which usefully bounds the blast radius, but it says nothing about versioning/concurrency, permissions required, or whether writes are published. Reset semantics are already documented in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then the input constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, mutation scope, reset, and the id/path rule. It omits version-conflict/concurrency behavior and permission requirements, which keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value by stating the id/path relationship as a strict XOR ('exactly one'), which the per-field schema text ('Supply this or path') leaves ambiguous. It repeats the reset behavior that the schema already documents, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sets field values on an existing Sitecore item') and the transport layer (Authoring and Management API), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like authoring-create-item, authoring-delete-item, or authoring-copy-item. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against any sibling, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 implies the partial-update use case ('Only the fields named are touched') and states a hard input rule ('Supply exactly one of id or path'), but it never says when to choose this tool over overlapping siblings such as item-service-edit-item or authoring-update-item-template. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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