ventrox_edit

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

With no annotations, the description correctly explains that it returns a bare true/false, does not report failure reasons, and lists likely causes of failure. It also indicates scope ('a vent you wrote'), which implies an ownership or session restriction, though it does not detail authentication behavior.

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 focused, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place. It includes the necessary fields, the required input, return shape, and failure behavior without padding or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives sufficient info to call it and interpret false results. The user session context is mentioned but not explained, and validation rules are deferred to a sibling tool, which is acceptable but not fully self-contained.

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 clarify parameter meaning. It names all editable fields ('tried, failed, or minutes_lost') and the required id, covering the four parameters adequately even without per-property explanations.

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's leading sentence clearly states the action ('Edit') and the resource ('a vent you wrote') and specifies the editable fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ventrox_vent by framing this as an edit operation for existing vents, not a creation operation.

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 states the required input ('Provide the vent ID') and implies this is used to modify an existing vent instead of creating one. It does not explicitly name ventrox_vent as the alternative, but the context signals make the intended usage clear.

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