Lifecycle Editable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the lifecycle-state rule, the released-is-immutable API guarantee, and the return shape {ok, editable, state}. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a clean param/return breakdown. The parenthetical '#141 C2' is internal context that adds little for an agent, but it does not undermine usability.

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 two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers invocation context, lifecycle semantics, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 provides only parameter names and titles, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining registry as 'path to the items.json sidecar' and item as 'the item id to check'. This is sufficient for simple parameters, though examples or format hints would be even better.

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 states the exact purpose: 'The cheap "is this editable?" check a builder runs before writing'. It names the lifecycle states and the specific criterion (editable only in in_work), which clearly distinguishes this read-only predicate from lifecycle_transition and 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: before writing, as a cheap check. It also explains that in_review, released, and obsolete are frozen. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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