aras_update_item

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: validation against schema, generation of new revisions for versionable item types, and disabled in read-only mode. This goes beyond basic purpose and is very transparent.

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 the main action stated first followed by necessary warnings. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while including critical caveats.

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?

While it provides important behavioral warnings, it lacks explanations of parameters, expected output, and interaction with other tools. The absence of output schema and parameter details makes it incomplete for a complex operation.

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?

The description does not explain any of the parameters (id, itemType, properties, dryRun). It only implies that properties is a set of updates, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter formats and meanings.

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 updates properties of an existing item, which is a specific and distinct action among the sibling 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?

It provides some usage guidance (e.g., caution about creating new revisions on versionable types, check revisions if needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative update tools like bulk_update or promote_item.

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