vast_update_linear_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a mutation but does not disclose behaviors such as whether it is a partial update, what happens if the ID does not exist, required permissions, or what the response contains. The description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the basic update action.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could arguably include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 a moderate schema (5 params, 1 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description is extremely brief and does not explain the update behavior, return value, or constraints. It provides only the bare minimum, leaving significant context gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides the necessary details.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('VAST linear media'), with 'existing' distinguishing it from create. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like vast_create_linear_media, vast_list_linear_media, and vast_update_non_linear_media.

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 minimal guidance—'existing' implies the resource must already exist, but there is no mention of when to use this versus other operations, no prerequisites beyond existence, and no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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