Update acquisition item

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

Annotations only cover idempotent and destructive hints. The description adds crucial behavioral details: dry-run by default, the confirm flag to actually execute, and PUT replacement semantics. It also indicates the operation is a Write, which is consistent with the absence of a readOnlyHint.

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 front-load the purpose and immediately follow with operational safeguards. No filler or redundant content.

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 complex 23-parameter mutation tool, the description covers operation semantics, idempotent PUT replacement, dry-run behavior, and confirmation. It lacks return-value details or edge-case guidance (e.g., item existence validation), but the schema and description together provide enough for safe invocation.

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 to the confirm parameter and the general 'full item' requirement, but it doesn't discuss other parameters. Schema descriptions cover 52% of properties, so the description is not the primary source for most parameter semantics. It doesn't compensate for the uncovered optional fields.

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 uses a specific action ('Replace') with a clear resource ('item within a pending acquisition') and context ('corrected firearm data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_acquisition or add_acquisition_items. It immediately conveys what the tool does and its 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool by scoping to a pending acquisition, and explains the operational workflow: supply the full item (PUT replacement), dry-run by default, and pass confirm:true to execute. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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