update_item

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, non-destructive. Description adds that it updates specific fields and is used for progress marking. Consistent with annotations; no contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states core functionality, second provides key use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple update tool, description suffices for selection. Lacks return value information (no output schema), but the schema is rich and annotations cover safety. Good enough given complexity.

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 100% with descriptive property comments. Description merely lists the three updatable fields without adding semantics beyond what schema already provides (e.g., status values). Baseline 3 justified.

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?

Clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'single item', specifies fields (status, name, description), and distinguishes from siblings like 'update_items' and 'delete_item' by focusing on single item. Includes primary use case (marking progress).

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?

Provides primary use context (marking in_progress/completed), implying when to use. Lacks explicit exclusion or alternatives, but siblings like 'update_items' imply batch use. No prerequisites or when-not stated.

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