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

With annotations already covering readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description adds substantial context beyond them: partial-update semantics, permanent audio non-replacement, immediate public visibility, one-call reversibility, no confirmation requirement, and the required Cotlet API key with app access. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the structured fields don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the editable-field list and constrained scope, and every sentence carries usable information. The phrasing around 'reaches no one directly' is slightly awkward but still compact and informative, with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the operation, its partial nature, its irreversibility of audio, public visibility, reversibility of other fields, and auth requirements. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (track_id and fields), so the schema already documents them adequately. The description restates the editable values, which adds marginal clarity but no format or syntax beyond what the schema lists. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (change/update) and resource (track details), and enumerates the exact editable fields: title, description, genre, tags, artwork, comment/download settings. It explicitly distinguishes from the upload path by stating the audio file cannot be replaced, letting an agent tell it apart from soundcloud_upload_track without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames the operation as a targeted update ('changes the fields you pass and leaves the rest as they are') and gives the guardrail that audio cannot be replaced, which routes callers to upload_track instead. It does not name a sibling for comment/download settings where set_track_privacy might overlap, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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