update_asset_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes are permanent (a key side effect) but does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if asset_id is invalid).

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 with a summary sentence, a list of use cases, a side effect note, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, param details, side effects, and return type. It lacks error handling or validation notes but is largely complete for a mutation tool without annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: asset_id as UUID, date_time_original as ISO 8601 with example, lat/lon ranges, description as free-text, etc. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 identifies the tool as updating metadata on a specific asset, with explicit use cases (fix dates, correct GPS, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on albums, tags, or people, thus avoiding ambiguity.

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 states when to use the tool (to fix dates, GPS, etc.) and notes that only provided fields are modified. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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