update_item

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

With no annotations, the description provides one behavioral detail: 'partial update' (only provided fields change). However, it does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether permissions are needed, or if the operation is reversible. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every part serves a purpose.

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 tool has no output schema and three required parameters including a nested object. The description fails to explain return values, error handling, or validation rules. Given the mutation nature, more context is needed for safe 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it only repeats that it's a partial update, which is already implied by the fields parameter being an object. No additional clarification on expected format or constraints.

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 action (update), resource (existing item/weapon/armor), and that it is a partial update. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_item or get_items by specifying the update operation on existing entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing items only, or when to recreate instead. Lack of usage context makes it harder for the agent to decide appropriately.

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