testpass_edit_item

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

The description indicates a write operation ('Override') but with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or required permissions. It is minimal but not misleading, as the schema hints at the required inputs.

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 12-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word 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?

For a simple mutation tool with well-described parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable. Could be more complete by mentioning that it targets a specific run and item.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add meaning beyond summarizing 'verdict and optional notes'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as it adds no extra insight.

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 ('Override'), the resource ('verdict and optional notes for a single check item'), and the context ('in a TestPass run'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like testpass_run, testpass_status, and testpass_report_*, which have different purposes.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., run must exist), and no exclusions. The lack of any usage context means an agent may not know when this tool is appropriate.

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