Report Edit Item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It does not say whether delete is irreversible, whether it overrides the other fields when combined, whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or cleared, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the edit operation and appends the delete case. No filler, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 explained. However, for a tool that can destroy a report item with no annotations and only 50% schema coverage, the description omits critical interaction rules (delete vs. edit precedence, unchanged-field behavior), leaving the agent under-informed.

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 50%: index, limit and result are self-documented in the schema, while label, note and delete have no descriptions. The description adds the field-to-parameter mapping but does not clarify semantics like using '' to clear a result or null meaning 'no change', so it neither compensates fully nor is empty.

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?

States a specific verb ('Edit') plus the resource ('report item') and enumerates the editable fields (label/note/result/limit), while also disclosing the delete capability. An agent can distinguish this from report_add_note or report_set_info, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as report_set_info or report_add_note. The only contextual hook, that 'index' comes from report_status, lives in the schema rather than the description, so routing is left entirely to inference.

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