update_item

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing in-place update behavior, key stability for Word citations, creators replacement semantics, version-check enforcement, and excluded fields. 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 somewhat long (~150 words) but every sentence adds essential detail. The creators JSON example is verbose but valuable for clarity. Structure is front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Covers parameter semantics, restrictions, and conflict behavior thoroughly. Does not describe return value or success response, but no output schema exists; overall sufficient for a moderately complex update operation.

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 has 0% coverage, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: key (implied), version (must match current, from get_item), and fields (bibliographic object, with creators example and restrictions).

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 states the tool edits bibliographic fields on an existing item in place, with explicit field examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_item, trash_item, and update_collection by targeting existing item metadata specifically.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating fields may not include tags/collections and directing to add_tags/remove_tags/set_tags and collection tools. Also explains the version parameter requirement and retry logic for conflicts.

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