update_replay_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that execution history is preserved, which is a non-obvious trait for a mutation, but it omits whether the update is a full replace vs. a patch (all four core fields are required, hinting at replace), permission requirements, and reversibility.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the mutation verb and the key invariant front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 6-parameter mutation with a nested headers object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is thin. The description should clarify replace-vs-partial semantics and header handling; the execution-history note is helpful but leaves most behavioral questions open.

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 every parameter including the nested headers map is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Updates a saved HTTP replay item') and adds a scope qualifier ('without changing its execution history'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/get/list/delete/execute siblings by implication, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against alternatives like create_replay_item or execute_replay_item. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the modification path.

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