artifact_update

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update', which implies mutation, but does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary information, pushing the boundary into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. It does not mention which fields can be updated, how related_items behave, or any side effects. An agent would lack crucial context to invoke this tool correctly, especially with several sibling update tools present.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The only parameter-related phrase is 'by id', which merely restates the required 'id' field already visible in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for 'path', 'title', 'description', or 'related_items', leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an artifact'), and specifies the scope ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like item_update and note_update, which target different resource types. However, it could be more explicit about what fields or behaviors are impacted, so it stops short of 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or edge cases. While 'artifact' implies a resource type, there is no explicit comparison to siblings or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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