update-item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature and GM-only restriction but does not explain merge behavior for 'system', what happens to omitted fields, or error states. The schema provides merge detail for 'system', but the description itself lacks this behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes key modifiers, and contains zero redundant words. It is optimally concise for its content.

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 tool with one complex parameter and no output schema, the description lacks details about return values, success indicators, or error handling. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an AI agent to predict invocation results.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description merely lists the same fields without adding new meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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 the verb 'Update', the resource 'existing world-level Item(s)', and lists the specific fields that can be changed (name, img, system data, folder). It also includes a critical usage constraint (GM-only) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create-item and 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 specifies that the tool is for updating existing items and is GM-only, setting clear prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation or deletion) or mention alternatives.

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