update_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what can be updated, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, how conflicts are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides a bulleted breakdown of metadata types. Each bullet adds value by explaining the semantics of different metadata categories. There's minimal waste, though the custom metadata explanation could be slightly more concise.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains what can be updated well, but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The parameter semantics are strong, but overall completeness is limited by missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains what each metadata field represents: name as 'display name', description as 'free text description', tags as 'keywords for searching', mount as 'default mount folder path', and custom metadata as 'admin-defined custom fields'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover the data_asset_id parameter.

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 tool's purpose: updating metadata for a data asset. It specifies the types of metadata that can be updated (name, description, tags, mount, custom metadata), which provides good specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'rename_computation' or 'get_custom_metadata', which would require a 5.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might overlap (rename_computation, get_custom_metadata, create_data_asset), but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific update tool over others. It simply describes what the tool does without usage context.

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