edit_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It states that the tool edits items and only changes specified fields, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is minimal information for a mutation tool.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by an Args section. It is well-structured and easy to read, though the Args section could be integrated more tightly into the prose.

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?

The description covers the essential parameters and provides a usage example, but it lacks information about return values (though an output schema exists), error handling, or prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description adds meaningful context to both parameters: 'items: edits to apply; only the fields you set are changed' and 'list_id: which list (from get_lists). Empty = the default list.' Although the input schema contains descriptions for the nested fields, the description provides high-level guidance on how to use them, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage metric.

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 identifies the tool as editing one or many items, with a specific usage example of checking/unchecking items while shopping. The phrase 'only the fields you set are changed' further clarifies the partial update behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_items, delete_items, and get_items.

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 a typical use case ('most often to check/uncheck while shopping') and mentions the list_id parameter's source ('from get_lists'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_items or delete_items, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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