update_cue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It includes a warning about modification and briefly explains each flag (merge, cueonly, tracking). However, it lacks detail on side effects, auth requirements, or error states. The flag meanings are minimal.

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 well-structured: a summary sentence, a distinguishing paragraph, an Args list, and Returns. It is concise with no superfluous content. The warning is effectively placed.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema (string), the description explains the tool's purpose, differentiation from store, and flags. It lacks detail on return value format and error handling but is sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters with one-line explanations ('Cue number to update', 'Add /merge flag'). While better than nothing, the explanations are very basic and do not fully clarify usage or valid values.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing cue', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'store' with the line 'Unlike store, Update merges programmer changes into an existing cue without re-storing.'

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 contrasts with 'store', giving a clear scenario when to use this tool instead. The warning about modifying existing programming advises caution. However, it does not mention other alternatives like delete_cue or store_cue_across_sequences.

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