update_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not mention the confirm gate, the required agentReason, potential destructive consequences, or whether changes are reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the phrasing 'selectors and field assignments' is compact enough to border on jargon, slightly reducing clarity without wasting space.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters including a mutation-confirmation flag and a required agentReason, but the description does not explain how selectors work, when confirmation is needed, or what happens after the update. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall behavioral context is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'selectors' which loosely maps to itemId, shareId, itemTitle, and vaultName, but does not meaningfully clarify the field assignment format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Update') and resource ('an item'), and adds the mechanism of 'selectors and field assignments.' This is enough to distinguish it from creation, deletion, and viewing siblings, though the term 'selectors' is somewhat vague without elaboration.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_item, trash_item, or update_vault. The operation is implied by the name but not contextualized, and no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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