artifact_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not disclose any traits like destructive behavior, required permissions, or partial vs full replacement. This is insufficient 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 sentence and concise, but it is too minimal. While not wasteful, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is adequate but not effective.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'update' entails, whether it is a partial or full replacement, what the response looks like, or any side effects. This is inadequate for correct tool usage.

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 mention any parameter meanings or constraints. The schema lists 5 parameters (id, path, title, description, related_items), but the description adds no value beyond the schema. This is a critical gap.

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 it updates an artifact by id. It uses a specific verb-resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like artifact_add, artifact_get, and artifact_list. However, it lacks additional context about which fields can be updated.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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