things_edit_extras

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: 'Checklist replacement replaces every row,' 'These fields cannot be read back,' 'receipt is unverified dispatch,' and 'Repeat templates may reject these changes.' It also explains the need for current revision and the keychain token. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by necessary prerequisites and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information. It is slightly dense and grammatically awkward in the opening enumeration, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Given the complex nested schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: required revision, unrecoverable/unreadable fields, unverified dispatch, and template rejection risk. It omits explicit semantics for projectId and requestId, but the schema and sibling tool names provide enough surrounding context for an agent to invoke it reasonably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps the main change categories to the changes object: checklist replacement/append/prepend, heading placement, and scheduling. However, required parameters like requestId and target are not explained beyond 'current revision' hinting at expectedRevision, and projectId is not mentioned at all. The property names are suggestive, but the description only partially bridges the schema gap.

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 names a specific set of operations—checklist replacement/append/prepend, heading placement, and scheduling with reminders/Evening/clearing—on Things items. This clearly differentiates it from general tools like things_update_item, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'Send' and resource 'To Things' give a clear action and target.

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?

It states prerequisites: 'Requires writes, current revision and the local Keychain URL token,' and gives caveats like 'Repeat templates may reject these changes.' However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as things_update_item or things_schedule_item, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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