eds_fix_metadata

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Clearly discloses that it writes to Document Authoring source, uses safe-writes (dry-run + undo), requires EDS_DA_TOKEN, and that publish:true makes changes live. Also mentions idempotency and that only provided fields are changed. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and mechanism. Every sentence carries unique info: what it does, safety features, and publish nuance. No padding.

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 5 params, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism (safe-writes), auth requirement, publish behavior, and idempotency. It's comprehensive and doesn't leave critical unknowns like reversibility or how to preview.

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 has 100% coverage (all params described). The description adds context by tying dryRun/withUndo to 'safe-writes path', explains the publish flag meaning, and clarifies the agent's role in supplying values. It adds value beyond schema without redundancy.

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 verb (fix), the object (SEO/social metadata), and the mechanism (Document Authoring source). It differentiates from siblings like eds_get_metadata (read-only) and eds_bulk_fix_metadata (bulk) by specifying it edits the page's Metadata block idempotently.

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 clear context: when to use (to fix metadata), how to use (dryRun first, publish to go live, withUndo for reversibility), and notes EDS_DA_TOKEN requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with eds_bulk_fix_metadata or eds_get_metadata, but the tool's scope is implied by its name.

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