update_agenda_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful side effect: marking an item done auto-logs work unless log_on_done=false. However, it does not mention other possible side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to fields not explicitly set.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the important auto-logging caveat is stated immediately after, making the text easy to scan and process.

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?

Given the tool has eight parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits several parameter semantics, gives no sibling-tool routing guidance, and does not mention expected return behavior or other consequences of updating.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for eight undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning to status, estimate, title, and log_on_done, but relies on 'etc.' and leaves notes, project, and type semantically unexplained.

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 verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('an agenda item'), and lists representative fields (status, estimate, title), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like delete_agenda_item, add_agenda_item, and update_playbook by both verb and resource.

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 instead of add_agenda_item, delete_agenda_item, or rollover_agenda. The only conditional note is about log_on_done behavior, which is a side-effect detail rather than tool-selection guidance.

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