item_set_fade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions max duration of 60s and that -1 keeps the value, but does not describe whether the modification is undoable or how it interacts with item selection or other project state.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences for purpose and guideline, then a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant 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?

For a simple mutation tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. It lacks details about error handling or prerequisites (e.g., item existence), but is sufficient for typical use. The presence of an output schema would not add much 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?

The description fully explains each parameter: item_index is the index, fade_in and fade_out are seconds with range 0+ and max 60s, and -1 means unchanged. Since the input schema lacks descriptions, this provides all necessary meaning, far exceeding the schema's bare type and title.

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 tool sets fade in/out for a single item, with a note preferring items_apply for multiple items. The verb 'set' and resource 'fade in/out' specify the action and object distinctly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like items_apply.

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 explicitly advises 'Prefer items_apply for multiple,' offering a clear alternative for batch operations. It also explains the -1 value meaning 'unchanged,' but does not specify when not to use the tool or other alternatives.

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