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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard refusal after release submission, the frozen-copy rationale, and the fact that underlying catalog changes cost credits and are the artist's decision.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly tangled ('changing the catalog underneath it is the artist's own decision, because it costs credits'), but still earns its place by conveying the refusal rule.

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?

No output schema, but annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the critical mutation constraint (frozen after submission) plus credit implications. A mutation tool with this much behavioral context is adequately specified, though the alternative once frozen is unstated.

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 75%, and the schema itself richly documents artist, fields (pointing at get_requirements), and dry_run. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Amend a track's metadata') that clearly separates it from update_album, update_post, and update_profile. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling update tools or create_track.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition and exclusion: the call is refused once the release has been submitted because a frozen copy exists. It does not name an alternative path (e.g. what to do once frozen), leaving that to inference.

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