Update Custom Item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important behavior that only explicitly provided fields are updated, preventing accidental clearing of unspecified fields. It does not cover error cases or response format, but the core partial-update behavior is a valuable disclosure.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates both the action and the key updating behavior.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is quite brief. It explains the core update mechanism but omits information about return values, update confirmation, or error handling. The schema covers parameters well, but the description leaves the response behavior unspecified, which is a gap given the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by explaining that only filled fields will be sent, which clarifies the effect of omitting any optional parameter—something the schema does not state.

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 clearly specifies the action (update) and the resource (custom item), and explicitly notes the item must already exist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_custom_item and delete_custom_item.

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?

The description implies usage for updating existing custom items and provides the key guidance that only filled fields are sent, which informs the agent which parameters to include. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'sudah ada' (already exists) clarifies that creation is out of scope.

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