Edit classifications

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true), it discloses the critical safety behavior: writes are staged by default and only committed with dry_run=false. It also explains the consequence of the edit — GUIDs persist so classified elements and property availability stay attached — and names the dependency on reserve_elements.

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?

Front-loaded with the dry-run default, which is the single most important fact, and every subsequent sentence adds operational information. Density suffers slightly from inline JSON snippets and the terse 'reserve_elements object_sets' reference, which reads as internal shorthand.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation semantics, the payload shape, and the Teamwork prerequisite. The unaddressed `port` parameter and the vague contrac for malformed `changes` entries keep it short of full completeness for a destructive write tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely does: it lays out the shape of each entry in `changes` for both items and systems, including the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and optional fields. The `port` parameter is never mentioned, and the item/system objects remain loosely typed (additionalProperties: true), leaving residual ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Edit classification systems and items in place'), which separates it cleanly from edit_property_definitions and edit_attributes by resource. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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 an explicit default-and-override rule for committing ('DRY-RUN BY DEFAULT; pass dry_run=false to commit') and an explicit exclusion ('Moving an item to another parent is not supported'), plus a prerequisite (reserve the Classifications set in Teamwork projects). No guidance is given on when to prefer this over the other edit_* siblings.

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