edit_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial update), what happens if the ref is invalid or no title exists, whether the change is undoable, or what is returned.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the editable fields, with the ref hint tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the required ref, but leaves partial-update semantics, error behavior, and return value undefined. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by naming the three editable fields (text, colour, size) and clarifying the ref format with an example ('2.0'). It omits color format (hex vs name) and size units, leaving real ambiguity in two 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change an existing title's text, colour or size'), which distinguishes it from the sibling add_title by making clear it operates on an existing title. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top 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?

Usage is implied: use this to modify a title that already exists rather than to create one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer add_title vs edit_title, nor any prerequisite/permission guidance, so context must be inferred.

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