update_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that updates cause re-embedding automatically, but omits important traits such as permissions required, versioning behavior, irreversibility, or side effects on linked entities. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description need not detail return values. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and potential side effects, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation. It covers the basics but lacks depth.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types; it says 'metadata or content' but does not clarify how parameters interact or any constraints. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 'Update an artifact's metadata or content', clearly specifying the action (update) and the resource (artifact). The parenthetical '(re-embeds automatically)' adds a distinguishing behavioral detail, differentiating it from sibling update tools like 'update_concept'.

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?

The description implies the tool is for updating artifact metadata or content, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., delete_artifact for removal). No 'when not to use' or context for preceding steps are mentioned.

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