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 and discloses essentially nothing about behavior. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are cleared, whether agent_token/claim_generation enforce ownership, or whether concurrent updates require a claim. For a 9-parameter mutation tool this is a severe gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key selector front-loaded. Its brevity is not wasteful in construction, but the sentence is under-specified rather than efficient — it earns its place only barely.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 9 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies none of the information an agent needs to invoke this safely. Nothing about return values, failure modes, or the meaning of the eight undocumented fields is 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% across 9 parameters, and the description only mentions 'id', which the schema already marks required. Fields like path, related_items, agent_token, claim_generation, client_agent_id, and client_session_id — several of which carry concurrency or auth semantics an agent cannot infer — receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Update an artifact') and adds the 'by id' selector, so the agent knows it mutates an existing artifact rather than creating one. But it never says which fields can be changed, so the purpose is only marginally more informative than the tool name itself.

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 indication of when to reach for this instead of artifact_add, artifact_get, or item_update, all of which sit in the sibling list. The only implicit signal is that an id must already exist.

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