update_draft

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. It says the operation validates and replaces metadata, but it does not explain whether replacement is partial or full, what happens if validation fails, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response will contain. This is a significant gap 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 focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource scope. Every word carries meaning, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent would not know the expected metadata shape, validation behavior, error conditions, or what the tool returns after success.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It gives some context by indicating that 'metadata' is replaced and 'id' refers to an existing draft, but it does not define the metadata object structure, validation rules, or any id semantics beyond a required string. The meaning added over the bare schema is thin.

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The description clearly states the action ('Validate and replace metadata') and the target resource ('an existing unpublished draft'). It distinguishes itself from creation (create_draft), retrieval (get_draft), and publication (publish_draft), though it does not explicitly name a sibling or draw out the difference from validate_deposition.

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 phrase 'existing unpublished draft' implies it should be used for already-created, not-yet-published drafts, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over validate_deposition or publish_draft, and no excluded use cases are listed.

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