anon_patch_lostfound_item_id_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value: it names the mutated fields (claimedAt, claimNote), the retain-on-omit rule for claimNote, the clearing behavior for pending, and the 400 'invalid status' failure mode. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the success response shape.

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 purpose and permission requirement are front-loaded, followed by per-value semantics, endpoint, and the projectId note. It is dense but every clause carries information; the 'no need to pass projectId' clause is slightly defensive but justified given the path template.

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?

For a mutation endpoint with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers what an agent needs: permission, side effects, validation failure, and hidden project scoping. Return-value details are the only missing piece, and they are minor for a status-transition call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it defines the two meaningful status values and clarifies that claimNote is retained when omitted. It also states that projectId is auto-resolved from the API key, sparing a likely mistaken parameter. The itemId path parameter is left self-evident.

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 states a specific verb and resource — transitioning the claim status of a lost-and-found item — and pairs it with the exact endpoint (PATCH /api/projects/{id}/lostfound/{itemId}/status). This distinguishes it from the sibling anon_patch_lostfound_item_id, which is the general item update, without needing to open either schema.

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 gives clear context: the lostfound:manage permission is required, and it enumerates how each status value behaves (claimed records claimedAt, pending clears it, others are rejected). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the general anon_patch_lostfound_item_id, so an alternative is implied rather than stated.

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