edit_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic purpose. It doesn't mention that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'Edit'), what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided simultaneously (e.g., addTags vs replaceTags).

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, though it could benefit from additional context about usage and 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 a complex mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for understanding, which lacks context about how the edit operation actually works in practice.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 action ('Edit') and target ('a task or project in OmniFocus'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'remove_item' or 'add_omnifocus_task' beyond the basic edit vs add/remove distinction, missing opportunities to clarify scope boundaries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing item ID), when to choose edit over remove+add, or how it differs from batch operations available in sibling tools like 'batch_add_items' or 'batch_remove_items'.

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