update_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing artifact' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are partial or complete replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions (e.g., if artifact doesn't exist). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a basic declaration, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with 11 nested parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'artifact' represents in this context, what fields can be updated, how the update operation works, or what to expect in return. The agent would be operating with minimal guidance in a complex parameter space.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond the single top-level 'update_artifact' object. With 11 nested properties (name, description, effects, etc.) completely undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them. This is a severe deficiency.

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 the verb ('update') and resource ('artifact in the knowledge graph'), which is clear but basic. It distinguishes from deletion tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update_* tools (like update_currency, update_location) that likely operate on different resource types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what aspects of an artifact can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., artifact must exist), when to use add_artifact versus update_artifact, or how this differs from other update operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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