zas_edit_item

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the authorization grant required, the ownership restriction that causes refusal, the empty-value clearing semantics, and the side effect that the owner sees every sent item marked with the agent name on every device. This is far beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information. The middle sentences are dense compound statements, but no sentence is filler; slight tightening would help readability.

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 covers authorization, ownership refusal, partial-update semantics, and visibility side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return-value documentation is unnecessary here.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: PATCH-style semantics ('Pass only the fields to change') and the behavior of empty values ('an empty title clears it'), which qualifies the schema's per-field descriptions rather than repeating them.

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 and resource ('Change an item this agent sent, keeping its id') and enumerates exactly which fields are editable (title, text, language, secret cover). It explicitly carves out the sibling boundary by noting file bytes change with zas_replace_file, so an agent can distinguish it from the other 12 tools 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Needs a grant that includes reading and sending'), an exclusion ('Refuses items sent by anyone else'), and an alternative ('A file's bytes change with zas_replace_file'). It also specifies partial-update usage ('Pass only the fields to change'), leaving nothing to inference.

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