metaplex-nft_updateMetadata

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but it does not state that this is an on-chain write requiring signing, or that changes affect NFT metadata permanently. It lacks warnings about authorization failures or irreversible effects, leaving the agent without key safety information.

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 front-loads the action and key fields. It is efficient, though the brevity might leave out important details for a complex tool. Every word earns its place.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the mutation's effects (transaction), required permissions, error conditions, or return value. For a tool that modifies on-chain state, this lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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?

The description mentions only 6 of 10 parameters (name, symbol, URI, creators, royalties, authority) and 'authority' is ambiguous (updateAuthority vs. newUpdateAuthority). It does not clarify complex parameters like creators (object with required address and share) or explain omitted fields like isMutable, primarySaleHappened. Schema coverage is 60%, and description adds minimal value.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('NFT metadata fields'), listing specific fields (name, symbol, URI, creators, royalties, authority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mintNFT (creation) or configureRoyalties (only royalties), though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., configureRoyalties for royalty-only updates) or prerequisites (must be the update authority). It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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