update_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without explaining mutation semantics (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions). The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is efficient but overly brief. It sacrifices important details (like return value, prerequisites) for brevity. While it is not verbose, it could be more informative without being longer.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what happens after a successful update, error handling, or whether the item must exist. The 4-parameter complexity and lack of return value information make this description incomplete.

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?

The schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by confirming that only 'title' and 'description' are updatable fields, while item_id and list_id serve as identifiers. The 'and/or' phrasing clarifies that either one or both fields can be updated, which is not explicit 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('punch list item'), and specifies the fields ('title and/or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_item (create) or set_item_status (status change), as it is specifically for updating text fields.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to change an item's status one should use set_item_status, or that to add a new item one should use add_item. The description lacks any situational context or exclusion criteria.

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