update_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention required permissions, error handling, idempotency, response format (e.g., returns updated item?), or whether the update merges or replaces. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and includes a practical example. No wasted words.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could be more complete by specifying the response, error conditions, or how the update behaves (merge vs replace). The sibling tools list is not leveraged.

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%, and the example adds context to the 'data' parameter. However, the description does not explain the structure of the 'data' object beyond what the schema already states ('Generic key-value object'). Baseline 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 it updates an existing item in a collection, uses a strong verb ('Update'), and provides an example that distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_item' or 'delete_item'.

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 implies usage for modifying existing items, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'bulk_update_items' or 'update_collection'. It is clear enough for basic use.

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