Update track metadata

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only the provided fields change') and the ownership restriction ('owned by the logged-in user'). It does not contradict the annotations, and the added behavioral context is meaningful for correct 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 two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, adds the HTTP method parenthetically, and places the important partial-update nuance in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of stating scope, ownership, and patch semantics. The main gap is that it never mentions what the response will be (e.g., updated track object or empty body), which the agent would normally need to know. Annotations cover the safety profile, so this is a minor but real omission for a mutation tool without an output schema.

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 43%, which is below the threshold where the schema alone can carry parameter documentation. The description does not compensate: it names no individual parameters, provides no formatting guidance, and does not clarify how the many undocumented optional fields (e.g., isrc, genre, label_name, purchase_url) should be supplied. The 'only provided fields change' note is useful globally but does not help with specific parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('metadata of a track owned by the logged-in user'), and the exact endpoint (PUT /tracks/{urn}). The closing sentence 'Only the provided fields change' crisply distinguishes this from a full-replace update, and the operation is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like upload_track, delete_track, and get_track.

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 clear context: this tool applies to tracks owned by the logged-in user, and it is a metadata-only update. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as soundcloud_upload_track for creating tracks or soundcloud_set_track_storefront for storefront-specific updates, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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