update_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Update fields of an existing list item') and includes essential context ('by its numeric ID'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects), usage guidelines, and details on parameters or return values. The description is too minimal to adequately support tool selection and invocation in this context.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'numeric ID' and 'fields', but these are already documented in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for gaps or enhance understanding of parameters like 'listName'.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'fields of an existing list item', specifying it's done 'by its numeric ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_item' (for new items) and 'delete_item' (for removal), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond implied scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting items), or compare to similar tools like 'update_column' or 'update_view'. Usage is implied by the action, but no explicit context or decision criteria are given.

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