flat_update_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral rule: setting privacy to public requires explicit user confirmation. However, it omits critical mutation semantics — all fields default to null, yet it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, nor whether changes are reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the privacy constraint. No wasted text; only minor deduction for the terse fragment structure of the second line.

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?

For a 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key fields, and the highest-risk behavior (public sharing). It still leaves the agent guessing about partial-update vs. clearing semantics and about the result of the call.

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% and the schema types privacy as a bare string with no enum, so the description's 'private | public | privateLink' is genuinely additive. It also names title, composer and description, but leaves arranger, lyricist, subtitle and score_id undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the 8-param 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Altera metadados da partitura no Flat') and enumerates the kinds of fields affected (título, compositor, descrição). This clearly separates it from siblings like flat_edit_musicxml or flat_replace_measures, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for metadata changes rather than musical content. There is one concrete conditional directive (making a score public requires explicit user confirmation), but no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over flat_edit_musicxml or flat_create_score.

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