lifecycle_editable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the editability rule (editable only in in_work; in_review/released/obsolete frozen), flags 'released = immutable' as an API-stability guarantee, and notes the check is 'cheap'. It stops short of stating whether it is a pure read or what happens on a missing item.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then the rule, then per-parameter notes and the return shape. Slightly cluttered by the internal ticket reference '(#141 C2)', which adds no value to an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so including 'Returns {ok, editable, state}' is genuinely useful. Combined with the state rule and both parameter meanings, the description is nearly complete for a two-parameter boolean-ish check; only edge-case/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 does: 'registry' is defined as the path to the items.json sidecar and 'item' as the item id to check. Both required parameters are meaningfully explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('is this editable?' check) and immediately scopes it as a pre-write guard a builder runs. It also names the exact semantics that distinguish it from lifecycle_transition/lifecycle_apply_change siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('the cheap check a builder runs before writing'), which implies when to call it versus the heavier lifecycle_transition tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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