item_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It adds useful context by indicating state-dependent applicability (open-item vs completed-item fields), but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or side effects beyond the basic mutation implied by 'update'. It is better than a generic update but not fully transparent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the update categories efficiently. No wasted words or repetition.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but omits details like return value, error behavior, and partial update semantics. It adequately categorizes fields but leaves room for more completeness in a complex tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It does map fields to categories (metadata, gates/timeout, commit_id, dependencies) and ties them to item states, which adds insight. However, it does not explain individual parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already shows.

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 an item by id') and identifies the specific categories of fields (metadata, gates/timeout, commit_id, dependencies). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like item_add (create) and item_get (read) by focusing on modification of existing items.

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?

The description implies usage for updating existing items but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., item_done for marking complete, item_split for splitting, etc.). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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