update_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Update'), mentions the 'ValueError' for not found items, and notes that metadata 'replaces existing'. However, it lacks details about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'updated item data' contains, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Raises, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and clear output.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic parameter meanings and error handling, but lacks context on sibling differentiation, permissions, or detailed behavioral traits, making it adequate but with 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'item_id' is 'unique identifier', parameters are optional with 'new' values, and metadata 'replaces existing'. This clarifies beyond the schema's types and defaults, though it doesn't cover all parameter nuances like format constraints.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing item', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_item' or 'delete_item' beyond the basic verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'create_item' or 'delete_item'. It mentions that 'item_id' is required and parameters are optional, but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions beyond 'ValueError', or comparison to siblings.

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