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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and is destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether the update is a patch or full replacement, or any permissions needed. The parameter descriptions use 'Patch' which hints at partial updates, but this is not explicit in the main description.

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 short and front-loads the action, but the structure is awkward with 'Guidance:' and a trailing '| context: id, paragraph_id' that is not formatted clearly. It is concise but not well-organized.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the update behaves, which fields are relevant for sound paragraphs, or any prerequisites. The generic parameter descriptions and lack of usage context leave significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

Although all parameters have descriptions, they are generic and often mismatched with the sound paragraph context (e.g., 'photo caption', 'photo image source'). They do not clarify the specific meaning of fields for a sound paragraph, such as how 'content' or 'embedUrl' relate to audio content. The descriptions add little beyond the parameter names.

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 states that it updates a sound paragraph, but the initial line 'Update paragraph.' is generic and the instruction is a bit awkwardly phrased. It does specify the resource (sound paragraph) and the action (update), but does not give a clear, standalone purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cms_update_sound or other paragraph update tools. The description only mentions the basic operation, without conditions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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