update_outreach_item

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates mutation ('update') but omits details on reversibility, required permissions (e.g., ownership), error handling (e.g., item not found), or side effects. Insufficient for a destructive 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?

Single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more detail on scope (e.g., which fields are metadata). Still efficient.

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, so agent has no idea what the response contains. Lacks information about validation (e.g., allowed status transitions), error conditions, or whether the update is partial or full. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal context by listing 'title, status, etc' as examples of metadata fields, but does not clarify the 'etc' or provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'update metadata on an outreach item' with explicit examples of updatable fields (title, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_outreach_body (body updates) and update_record (generic).

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?

Implies usage for updating metadata fields like title and status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_outreach_body or create_outreach_item. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria provided.

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