update_item

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful versioning behavior: published items in versioned collections are read-only and a draft version must be targeted. This goes beyond the raw annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important versioning caveat follows immediately. Every sentence adds relevant information with no 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?

The description covers the key behavioral exception (versioned collections) and all parameters are documented in the schema. It is complete enough for typical use, though it could be more explicit about whether 'data' represents a partial update or a full replacement. Given the moderate complexity and annotation coverage, this is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's versioning guidance overlaps with the version parameter's existing schema description rather than adding meaningful new parameter-level semantics. It clarifies the versioning context but does not add much beyond 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 clearly states the operation: 'Update an existing item in a collection.' The verb 'Update' plus the resource 'existing item in a collection' precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_item and delete_items. The versioning caveat further clarifies the scope.

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 clear situational guidance for versioned collections: published items are read-only, so target a draft version instead. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the update-vs-create distinction is implicit in 'existing item' and the versioning instruction is actionable.

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