update_item_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the mutation to text only and states it does not move or delete the item, but it omits key behavioral facts: whether the new content fully replaces the old, whether formatting is preserved, and what happens if the item ID is invalid.

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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage note and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, non-destructive scope, and the ID prerequisite. The remaining gap is the replace-vs-merge semantics of the content field and any error behavior, which an agent would need for fully confident 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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema; the 3-score baseline applies. The description does add meaning for item_id by explaining how to obtain it, but it adds nothing for board_id or content beyond the schema's own text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Updates the text content of an existing sticky note, shape, or text item') and explicitly contrasts itself with siblings by clarifying it does so 'without moving or deleting the item.' An agent can distinguish it from move_item, delete_item, and the create_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It states when to use it ('to correct or improve existing content') and supplies a concrete prerequisite routing to another tool ('Requires the item ID — call list_board_items first if you don't have it'). It stops short of naming explicit when-not conditions (e.g., use create_sticky_note for new items), so it is strong context rather than full routing.

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