arvan_vod_update_audio

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds 'update' which aligns, but no additional behavioral details like authentication needs, partial update behavior, or side effects.

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?

One sentence is concise but lacks detail. For a simple update, this might be adequate, but the absence of parameter context makes it less helpful.

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 nested object parameter and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain valid fields, constraints, or how the update behaves (e.g., partial vs full replacement).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'given fields' but does not explain the structure of the fields object or what valid fields are. This provides only minimal meaning 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 tool updates an audio item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete audio, but doesn't specify what fields can be updated, so it's not maximally specific.

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 like arvan_vod_create_audio or arvan_vod_get_audio. The description lacks context for when an update is appropriate.

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