dashy_update_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the shallow-merge behavior and that only given fields change, which are key for an updater. It does not mention error conditions when an item is not found, but core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and adds a precise scope constraint without filler. Every word contributes.

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 has 4 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, identification, and merge semantics well. It omits filename semantics and edge cases like item-not-found, but for an AI agent selecting and invoking the tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that iid and sid can be indices or exact names, and interprets patch as the object to shallow-merge. However, the optional filename parameter is not described at all, and the schema itself provides no clues.

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 uses a specific verb ('shallow-merge') with a clear resource ('an item') and scope ('within a section'), and specifies identification methods (by index or exact title/name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_item, delete_item, and update_section.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can tell it is for modifying an existing item's fields. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over dashy_add_item or dashy_replace_config, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., 'not for adding new items').

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