item_edit

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

With no annotations, description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates items, notes can be cleared with empty string, fields are upserted or removed, and tags are replaced entirely. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., if itemId not found) or permission requirements, but these are moderate omissions.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence lists editable aspects, the second clarifies partial update behavior. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all input aspects: how each optional parameter affects the item, the partial update guarantee, and specifics like clearing notes. No missing information for correct invocation.

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%, but description adds valuable semantics: empty string clears notes, tags replace all, fields are matched by idOrTitle case-insensitively, and removeFields fields are removed. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter 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?

Description uses specific verbs ('edit', 'update', 'upsert', 'remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing 1Password item'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like item_delete, item_archive, and item_get by focusing on modification actions.

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?

Description states 'Only referenced fields are changed; all others are preserved,' guiding partial updates. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context of editing vs. deleting (item_delete) or viewing (item_get) is implicit. Could be improved by noting when to use this over item_update or password_update, but sibling names suggest these are distinct tools.

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