update_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates mutation via 'update' but does not state whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they cleared or left unchanged?). The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the primary purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it could benefit from structuring bullet points for clarity when listing fields.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or that media_type and instance_id are identifiers. Given the large set of sibling tools, more context (e.g., 'use this to update multiple fields at once') would improve completeness.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It lists updatable fields (status, score, progress, notes) but adds no semantic detail beyond their names. The schema already provides constraints and enums, so the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 'update' and the resource 'tracked media item', listing specific updatable fields (status, score, progress, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_entry' (create), 'delete_entry' (delete), and the more specific 'update_progress' and 'update_score'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The listing of fields implies it is for updating multiple aspects at once, but it does not direct agents to use 'update_progress' or 'update_score' when only one field needs changing. This leaves usage context partially implied rather than explicit.

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