item_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates metadata but does not specify whether properties are merged or overwritten, what happens to missing fields, or any side effects. No information on authorization requirements or idempotency is given. The description lacks necessary transparency for a mutation operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. It is concise with no extraneous words. However, it could benefit from a brief note on the required id parameter or a link to more detailed documentation.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., item must exist). The tool's complexity (mutation with multiple fields) demands more context than provided. The constraints in the schema (e.g., title minLength 3) are not mentioned, leaving agents uninformed about validation rules.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the updatable fields (note, title, description, high_priority, dependencies) but omits the required 'id' parameter and does not explain constraints like minLength/maxLength. The phrase 'replacement dependency ids' adds meaning by indicating that the dependencies array replaces the existing list. While helpful, it is insufficient to fully document all parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('item metadata'), and lists specific fields (note, title, description, high_priority, dependencies). It differentiates from sibling tools like item_add (create) and item_deprecate (state change) by specifying it updates existing item metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The mention of 'replacement dependency ids' implies a use case for dependency updates, but there is no exclusion criteria or comparison with other item tools. Usage context is implied by the tool's name and sibling set.

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