update_show

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

The description indicates mutation ('Update') but lacks details on behavior: partial vs full update, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. No annotations are provided, so the burden is on the description, which fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 extremely brief (4 words), which is concise and to the point. However, it lacks detail and structure that could help an agent. It is not verbose but could benefit from front-loading key information.

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 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., patch vs put), what happens on failure, or the return value. The single sentence does not compensate for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema covers all 15 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description ('metadata') adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('show's metadata'), but 'metadata' is unspecific. However, the input schema clarifies the updatable fields, making the purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_show' (read-only) and 'update_episode' (different resource).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_episode' or 'authorize_upload'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use it. The description provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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