update_output_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'update', which implies mutation, but it doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether permissions are required, or what the return value is. The description is almost entirely silent on behavior beyond the bare verb.

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 extremely concise—one sentence, front-loaded with the action. It's efficient but omits crucial details. While conciseness is valued, this borders on under-specification, and the missing context about behavior and parameters outweighs the brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address error scenarios, required preconditions, return format, or side effects. An agent cannot reliably determine the consequences of calling this tool, making it unsafe to invoke without additional probing.

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 for parameter meaning. It mentions 'name' and 'ID' but doesn't explain what 'name' represents (e.g., the new value to assign) or any constraints. It adds minimal context beyond the property names already visible in the schema.

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 states a clear verb+resource+field: 'update the output value name by ID'. It identifies the action, target, and the field being modified. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like add_output_item or remove_output_item, which could confuse an agent about when to pick this one, so it loses a point.

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 given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_output_items or add_output_item. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of the item) or any exclusions. The description simply states the operation without context.

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