update_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it updates properties without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties (e.g., partial updates). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full implications.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that properties can be updated, which doesn't enhance the schema's details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('properties of an existing cue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_cue_list' or 'update_scene', which also modify cue-related entities, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cue ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_cue_list' or 'reorder_cues', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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