UpdateMetadataExtension

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates. This adds transparency beyond the input schema, though it omits authorization needs, error conditions, or side effects like version changes.

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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loads key information. However, the initial 'Operation: Update, Create. Subject: MetadataExtension' is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the main action (update source code) and process (lock-unlock-activate) but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites like transport request necessity. It is minimally complete.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states it updates or creates metadata extensions, but specifically details updating source code of an existing one. With a sibling CreateMetadataExtension tool, the create aspect is misleading, reducing clarity. However, the verb 'Update' and resource 'MetadataExtension' are clearly identified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like CreateMetadataExtension or CheckMetadataExtension. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparative scenarios.

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