update_episode_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the key safety-relevant behavior: metadata is changed but disk files are untouched, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether this is a destructive operation. It could additionally state partial-update semantics or response behavior, but the core disposition is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place, with the non-destructive clarification placed immediately after the core purpose.

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 metadata-update tool with five parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential context: what is updated and that disk files are unaffected. It does not detail return values or what happens to omitted fields, but the schema and the simple mutation nature keep this from being a critical gap.

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 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents every parameter, including examples for the nested quality and languages objects. The description lists the same fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('existing episode files') and lists the exact editable fields: quality, languages, release group, scene name. The parenthetical 'the file editor' and the disk-touch clarification further distinguish it from file-deletion and file-listing siblings.

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 this tool is for editing episode-file metadata rather than deleting or listing files, and 'Does not touch the files on disk' gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations such as delete_episode_file or list_episode_files, nor state when this tool should or should not be used.

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