edit_artist

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly identifies the operation as an update, but omits details like partial update semantics, authorization requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a complex 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 just two sentences, directly stating the purpose and common uses. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., whether updates are partial or require all fields). It mentions 'etc.' but lacks specifics about optionality or response format, which would aid the agent in invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond listing example fields; it does not explain parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Update an existing artist') and the resource ('BNDY'), and lists specific fields that can be added (location, genres, social media URLs, bio). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_artist and edit_event, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to add location, genres, social media URLs, bio, etc.'), providing context for typical use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use it or specify alternatives (e.g., for bulk updates), limiting completeness.

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