Uwear

Update Art Direction

update_art_direction

Destructive

Update a company ArtDirection. System ArtDirections are read-only. When changing markdown directly, preserve the Variation Controls parser contract: reusable alternatives must be under ## Variation Controls, not only in prose.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Updated ArtDirection name
`art_direction_id`	Yes	The ArtDirection ID to update
`content_markdown`	No	Updated complete ArtDirection markdown. If editing directly, every reusable alternative that should rotate across generations must live under `## Variation Controls` as `###` controls with `A. Option` lines; do not leave selectable worlds, pose families, or shot-role plans only in prose.
`reference_image_attachments`	No	Replacement authoring reference image attachments. These are for iterating the markdown only, not generation-time references.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: system ArtDirections are read-only, and the Variation Controls parser contract must be preserved when editing markdown. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, a critical usage constraint, and the parser-contract rule. No filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers key operational risks (system read-only, markdown parser) and important parameter semantics. However, it does not clarify whether partial updates are allowed (e.g., omitting name leaves it unchanged) or describe the response shape, which is a minor completeness gap given the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for content_markdown by specifying the exact structure required (## Variation Controls, ### controls, A. Option lines), which goes beyond the schema's general guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and the specific resource ('company ArtDirection'), immediately distinguishing it from create, get, list, or duplicate sibling tools. The additional note about System ArtDirections being read-only further clarifies its target scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear when-not: system ArtDirections are read-only, so this tool is only for company ArtDirections. It also provides context for when editing markdown directly, but does not explicitly name alternatives like create_art_direction or get_art_direction, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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

All Uwear tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.

Tool Count1/5

With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.

Completeness3/5

The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.

Resources

Need Help?