convert_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains reference resolution for item_id, backend wire field name for 'to', conditional requirements for complete_by, recurrence, and end_time, and idempotent behavior (200 vs 201). It does not cover permissions or error cases but provides substantial behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is concise with four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. It is efficient but slightly dense.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, mutation, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers parameter requirements, transformation behavior, and idempotent return codes. It does not address error scenarios or invalid conversions but is fairly complete for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: item_id accepts multiple reference forms; to is the backend field name; complete_by required for Event/Chore/Habit; recurrence required for Habit/Chore; end_time Event-only. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Convert an item to a different kind (Task / Chore / Habit / Event).' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the conversion aspect distinguishes it from sibling create/update/delete tools.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new item or updating item attributes. It lacks explicit context for appropriate usage and does not mention when not to use it.

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