item_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical partial-update behavior ('Only referenced fields are changed; all others are preserved') and the destructive edge case for clearing notes. This goes well beyond a simple 'update' statement, though it omits potential error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, essentially zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by specific details (empty string clears notes, only referenced fields change). Highly efficient and scannable.

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 moderate-complexity edit tool, the description covers all update operations and key behavior. With complete parameter schemas, it need not repeat return details. Minor omissions like item-not-found error handling are not significant enough to lower further.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important cross-cutting semantics beyond individual parameter docs: the overall partial-update contract and the upsert/remove behavior for fields. This enriches understanding of how parameters interact.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Edit an existing 1Password item') and lists all supported update operations (title, notes, tags, URL, fields, remove fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like item_delete or item_archive by focusing on modification.

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 usage for editing existing items but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. It gives no direct comparison to password_update or item_delete, though the edit-focused verbs make context clear. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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