update_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, partial updates, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Extremely concise and clear.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits error conditions, response format, and behavioral details like whether updates are partial or complete. More context is needed for effective agent use.

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%, so parameters are described. The description adds context by listing fields (name, category, note, star) that map to parameters, but does not explain the relationship between newValue and the name field beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an item's details and lists the specific fields (name, category, note, star rating). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_item, cross_off_item, and remove_item by specifying the update action.

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 gives a general sense of when to use (updating item fields), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names offer some implicit guidance, but no explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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