update_rom_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the scope constraint that only bounded text metadata is affected and explicitly excludes asset fetch/write and provider-ID mutation. It doesn't explain null-clearing behavior, partial updates, or open-world side effects, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope. The semicolon cleanly separates the core statement from the boundary exclusions, with no unnecessary filler.

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 description leaves important gaps: no alternative routing, no partial-update/null semantics, and no acknowledgment of openWorldHint. The schema lists fields, but the agent still cannot confidently determine when this tool is appropriate versus update_rom_user_properties or how null values are handled.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only categorizes fields as 'bounded text metadata' and doesn't explain the semantics of nulls/defaults or whether omitted optional fields leave values untouched. This adds little meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Update' and scopes it to 'bounded text metadata', explicitly excluding asset fetch/write and provider-ID mutation. This makes the operation reasonably clear, though it doesn't name the exact fields or differentiate from update_rom_user_properties, so it falls just 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 description provides useful boundary guidance: only text metadata, never asset operations or provider-ID changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_rom_user_properties, leaving the agent to infer routing from tool names.

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