update_inbox_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real consequences: status="skipped" drops the item, pending with allow_duplicate causes a second copy to be saved by the next batch, and the plan stays incomplete while an item is parked. It omits error behavior, idempotency, and whether status changes are reversible, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by scenario-specific guidance and an Args block. The Args block partially restates schema parameter names, but each entry adds semantics, so little is wasted; the multi-line case guidance is justified by the branching logic.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the workflow position, prerequisite ordering, and side effects of each status, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing pieces are return/confirmation behavior and failure handling, keeping it just below complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the four status values, marks uid as required when status='done', states path is relative within loci-stage as it appears in the plan, and explains allow_duplicate's effect. All four parameters gain meaning beyond their bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('Update a plan item's status'), which is clear and distinct from vault-writing siblings like write_vault or patch_vault. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the plan-item framing plus references to execute_inbox_file_batch and write-a-vault-node make the scope identifiable.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance tied to workflow position: 'call after writing a vault node for the item' for content items, and a decision rule for file items parked as duplicate (skipped to drop vs. pending plus allow_duplicate to re-queue). It does not explain when not to use it or cover the 'failed' status, so it falls short of full 5-level coverage.

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