update_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does well by disclosing the read-modify-write behavior: 'Fetches the current series, merges the given fields and puts it back.' It also clarifies that only passed fields are changed, protecting against accidental overwrites. It could mention side effects of path/root changes, but the `move_files` parameter already signals that concern.

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 tightly written sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the merge behavior is explained in a compact, em-dash-separated clause. 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?

For a settings-update tool with a fully documented schema and no annotations, the description provides the crucial non-obvious semantics: partial merge rather than full replacement. The main gap is the lack of any mention of the return value, but since there is no output schema and the invocation requirements are fully documented, this is not a blocking omission.

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 input schema already documents all 10 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by stating that the operation is a merge: only the fields you pass are changed, meaning unpassed optional fields are preserved. This materially changes how an agent should interpret the optional 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 settings') and the resource ('an existing series'), making it easy to identify this as a single-series update tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `edit_series_bulk`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'on an existing series' implies this is for updating an already-present series rather than creating one, and the merge semantics clarify it is a partial update. However, it never names alternatives such as `add_series` or `edit_series_bulk`, or states when to prefer them over this tool.

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