Metadata Update

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation via 'POST' but does not explain side effects (e.g., file modifications, potential failures) or any required preconditions. This is minimal and leaves ambiguity about what 'sidecar metadata' entails.

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 includes the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff. Excellent brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is the sole guide. It does not explain what 'sidecar metadata' is, what local models it applies to, or any conditions for success. While the tool is simple, the lack of explanatory context makes it minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input (empty object). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does not need to explain parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update sidecar metadata for local models' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sdnext_civitai_metadata_scan (which scans metadata) by focusing on the update operation. The endpoint is also provided, adding precision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows (e.g., scan first then update), or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of function without contextual usage instructions.

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