cassette_update_track_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'Update track fields' without specifying permissions, side effects, partial update behavior, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, endpoint, and affected fields.

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 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only lists fields. It lacks information on return values, error handling, partial updates, or any post-update behavior, leaving significant 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?

The schema coverage is only 42%, but the description compensates by listing 11 of the 12 parameters (excluding trackId) that lack schema descriptions. This adds meaningful context about available fields, though trackId is omitted in the list.

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 it updates track fields via PATCH /metadata and lists all modifiable fields, making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cassette_create_track' or 'cassette_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cassette_create_track for new tracks, cassette_get_track for reading). It implies updating existing track metadata but lacks when-not or prerequisite conditions.

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