item_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the operation but does not disclose whether the original item is modified or destroyed, what the result is (e.g., two new items), or if any side effects occur. Safety-critical details like destructiveness are missing.

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 very short (two lines) and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning. The structure could be improved (e.g., using a list or clearer formatting), but it remains concise and to the point.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the outcome of splitting, how to access resulting items, error conditions, or any required state (e.g., item must exist). The completeness is inadequate for a tool that modifies project state.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'position' is in seconds. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more fully. It does not clarify index base (0 or 1), valid ranges, or behavior for out-of-bounds values. The added value is minimal but non-zero.

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 'Split item at position', using a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling item_* tools (e.g., item_delete, item_move) by specifying a split operation. However, it does not elaborate on what splitting entails (e.g., creates two items), which could be clearer.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions (e.g., cannot split certain item types). The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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