item_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'atomically' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose what happens to the original item (e.g., whether it is deprecated), whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value looks like. Side effects like creating a seeded subsprint are mentioned but not elaborated.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could benefit from a bit more explanatory detail without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is highly incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, or side effects, and offers no context about the structure of goals and gates required for the split 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the meaning of any of the 5 parameters (id, description, goals, gates, dependencies). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and indicates the creation of a 'seeded subsprint atomically,' which clearly identifies the action of splitting an item. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like item_done or subsprint_new, and 'seeded subsprint' is jargon that may require domain knowledge.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage through the action itself, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as item_done and item_deprecate suggest alternative item resolutions, yet no comparative usage context is provided.

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