vibo_update_song

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be a mutation. The description adds the key behavioral trait 'Confirm-gated,' explaining that a confirm=true parameter is required to commit changes, otherwise a preview is returned. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for safe 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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence lists the primary actions, the second adds the confirmation requirement and the condition of providing at least one field. No wasted words.

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 tool's 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality (updating must-play, flagged, comment) and the confirm-gating behavior. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the core usage is adequately described for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes the update fields (isMustPlay, isFlagged, comment) but does not add detail beyond what the schema provides. For isMustPlay and comment, the description adds a bit of context, but overall it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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), the resource (songs in a section), and specific operations (mark must-play, flag do-not-play, set comment). It distinguishes from siblings like vibo_add_song_to_section and vibo_remove_song_from_section by indicating update vs add/remove.

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 notes 'Provide at least one field' and 'Confirm-gated,' which gives basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., adding vs updating) or provide exclusions. The sibling names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks comparative guidance.

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