Edit classifications

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

This is the standout dimension. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the critical non-obvious fact that the tool is DRY-RUN BY DEFAULT and requires dry_run=false to actually commit. It also discloses that items keep their GUID so classified elements and property availability remain attached, and that reparenting an item is unsupported.

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 purpose, then the highest-stakes operational detail (dry-run default), then the payload formats. Given 0% schema coverage, the inline JSON examples are load-bearing rather than filler, and there is no redundant prose.

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. For a destructive mutation tool the description covers the safety-critical behavior, payload shape, and a key limitation (no reparenting). Minor gaps remain: whether a committed edit is reversible and what the undocumented 'port' parameter does.

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 burden, and it does: it documents dry_run's default/commit semantics and gives explicit JSON shapes for both item and system change objects, including optional fields like code, name, description, source, version and date format. The 'port' parameter is left undocumented, which is the only gap.

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+resource: 'Edit classification systems and items in place.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_property_definitions and edit_schedule_scheme, which operate on different domains. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it should pass dry_run=false to commit, and that moving an item to another parent is not supported. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' or naming of alternative tools for related edit tasks, so guidance is only partial.

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