testpass_edit_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals one non-obvious behavior: 'Fail-to-pass edits are flagged in mc_signals.' However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the override is reversible, or what side effects accompany a verdict change, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mc_signals caveat following immediately. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but the description omits permission requirements, reversibility, and the effect of the override on the wider TestPass run, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and all four parameters (run_id, item_id, verdict, notes) are documented in the schema, including the enum for verdict and the 'required reviewer note' constraint on notes. The description names verdict and notes but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Override') and resource ('verdict and notes for a single check item in a TestPass run'), making the operation concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read/report siblings like testpass_report_json or testpass_status, though it doesn't explicitly name the edit alternative (legalpass_edit_item exists for a parallel system).

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 to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., after a run exists, versus testpass_run). The word 'Override' hints at manual correction but no when/when-not framing is given.

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