update_item

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing item', which implies mutation but doesn't explain partial vs. full updates, error handling for non-existent items, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, nested object, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't cover expected behavior, return values, or edge cases, which could lead to incorrect tool usage.

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% because each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (item in Business Central), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_item, delete_item, and list_items. It's direct and unambiguous.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as the item needing to exist, nor does it suggest sibling tools for related operations. This is a significant gap.

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