edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutating operation (edit/change). However, it doesn't mention whether edits require authentication/unlock state, whether an existing item is overwritten vs. merged, or what happens to unspecified fields (are unprovided fields preserved or cleared?). Zero annotation coverage means the description should disclose behavior more thoroughly, but it does at least convey the mutation nature.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose clearly without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Front-loaded with the clean verb 'Edit' and specifics about what can be edited. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a moderately simple tool with 3 parameters and full schema coverage, so the description isn't heavily burdened. However, it's a mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral caveats (like whether updates require unlock state, or whether partial field updates preserve unmentioned fields). The description is minimally adequate but leaves some open questions for a state-changing operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (id, notes, password) with descriptions. Given the high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds 'for an existing item' context confirming the item must exist, but doesn't add format or behavioral details beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'password and/or notes' clarifies that these are the editable subset, which is consistent with but not additive to the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Edit the password and/or notes for an existing item in your vault.' It clearly identifies the resource (vault items) and what can be edited (password, notes). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'create', 'delete', or 'get' tools explicitly, though the action is distinct enough that the purpose is reasonably clear without naming alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention that 'id' is required, that this takes an existing item (implying the item must already exist), or contrast with alternatives like 'create' (for new items) or 'delete'. There's no explicit or implied usage context beyond the basic editing action.

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