zas_edit_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the ownership refusal, the required grant (read + send), the side effect that the owner sees a >_ agent mark with this agent's name on every device, and the destructive-ish semantics of an empty title clearing the label. It stops short of describing what an error or partial failure looks like, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 primary action and its id-preserving nature are front-loaded, followed by exclusions, prerequisites, and side effects in a tight sequence. No sentence is padding; the owner-visibility note is a genuine behavioral disclosure, not filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership, authorization, partial-update semantics, and visibility side effects. It omits error behavior and does not mention whether changing channel relocates the item, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds partial-update semantics ("Pass only the fields to change") and the empty-title clearing rule, which are behavioral rather than restatements. The channel parameter's role in moving an item is only covered by the schema, not the description.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (an item this agent sent) with the deliberate constraint that the id is preserved, and explicitly separates itself from the sibling that handles file bytes (zas_replace_file). An agent can distinguish this from zas_send_note and zas_replace_file without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ("A file's bytes change with zas_replace_file") and states the ownership precondition ("Refuses items sent by anyone else") plus the grant requirement. It also gives a usage rule for partial updates ("Pass only the fields to change"), leaving little to inference.

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