update_item_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the WRITE OPERATION, names the required update write scope, and spells out which mode destroys the original body and what confirmation is needed. It omits details like reversibility of append vs overwrite beyond the stated replacement semantics, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences that front-load the operation and the destructive-path warning; every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the scope and destructive-mode requirements well. The gap is undocumented semantics for id/text/trace_id on a mutation tool with zero schema descriptions.

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. It explains mode and confirm_overwrite semantics, but the required id and text parameters and trace_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description; it also mentions allow_body_overwrite, which is not a parameter of this schema, adding ambiguity.

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 ('Update the body of an existing eLabFTW database item'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like update_experiment_body and update_entity_metadata.

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 clear conditional guidance for the two modes, including the default ('append' preserves and appends) and the conditions for the destructive path (allow_body_overwrite plus confirm_overwrite=true). It does not name sibling alternatives for when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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