items_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the sidecar is created if absent, that the file is written back, that reserved rev/lifecycle fields are seeded with held defaults, and what is returned. It omits important behavioral detail such as duplicate-item handling, idempotency, concurrency/locking, or error conditions.

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 core action sentence is front-loaded, followed by a compact per-parameter list and a return-value line. Every element earns its place; the only minor cost is the internal-reference jargon ('#141 state machine, not C1') that an outside reader cannot decode.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, all parameters, and the return shape ({part_number, item, registry}). Only edge-case behavior (duplicate id, failure modes) is missing.

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 compensate, and it documents all four parameters (registry, item, files, metadata) including which are optional. It adds meaning the bare schema lacks (e.g., item = 'stable logical id manifests reference', metadata = 'free-form queryable attributes').

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Allocate a non-significant sequential part number and register a new item') and names the exact artifact store ('items.json sidecar'). It is clearly distinct from the validation/resolution siblings (items_validate, items_resolve), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative is named. An agent can infer from 'register a new item' that this is the creation path versus items_validate/items_resolve, but that is inference, not stated guidance.

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