legalpass_edit_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: this is a mutation (an 'override') and it produces an auditable before/after record. However, it omits whether the override requires reviewer authorization, whether it is reversible, and that inputs are gated by PassGuard linting.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return behavior. No filler or 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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and return content but omits the linting gate, the alias relationship between notes and reviewer_note, and any permission or lifecycle requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters, including the verdict enum and the notes/reviewer_note alias. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Apply a human reviewer override') with a specific resource ('a LegalPass item') and states the outcome (an audit entry with before/after state). It is clear enough to separate from read-style siblings like legalpass_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with legalpass_verdict or testpass_edit_item.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus legalpass_verdict, legalpass_run, or testpass_edit_item, and no stated preconditions (e.g. an existing run/item, reviewer authorization). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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