lexicon_update_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation and requires an environment variable, but does not specify whether updates are destructive, idempotent, or have side effects.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second adds the prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and prerequisite but does not explain the return value, error cases, or success indicators. While acceptable for a simple mutation, it leaves gaps.

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 adds value beyond the schema by listing the fields that can be updated (tags, metadata, cuepoints, incoming flag) and providing context for the 'edits' object. The schema itself has a brief example, but the tool description clarifies the scope.

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), the resource (one track), and the specific fields (tags, metadata, cuepoints, incoming flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexicon_get_track or lexicon_list_tracks.

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 mentions the prerequisite environment variable (LEXICON_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1), which is useful context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative update approaches or when not to use it.

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