create_items_by_id_scan

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not state that the operation triggers a scan, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects occur. The only hint is to read the schema endpoint for the body, which implies the body is dynamic but does not explain the operation's behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description does not enrich that.

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 concise but structurally sparse. It includes an endpoint and a minimal args list. The opening line 'Create or act on items scan' is vague and does not front-load a clear purpose. The format is acceptable but not well-organized; it could benefit from a clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 complexity (POST with dynamic body, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, the body's expected structure, the response, or when to use it. The pointer to the schema endpoint is a partial workaround, but the description itself is not self-contained, leaving the agent to make assumptions.

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?

The description provides some guidance: it identifies id as a path parameter and body as a payload, and advises reading the GET or /schema endpoint for fields. However, with schema coverage at 0% (body is an open object), this guidance is insufficient to construct a valid request without external lookup. It adds value by pointing to the schema but does not compensate fully for the lack of defined parameters.

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 'Create or act on items scan' is ambiguous—it does not clarify what 'scan' means or what action is performed. The endpoint POST /api/items/{id}/scan suggests a scan operation, but the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_items_batch_scan or create_libraries_by_id_scan. The verb 'Create' is also unclear—does it create a scan job or act on an existing one? The description repeats the tool name without explaining its function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this scans a single item, while create_items_batch_scan scans multiple items, or any other distinguishing context. The description only gives the endpoint and a pointer to the schema, offering no usage criteria.

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