update_gallery_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose side effects: published_at/featured_at are auto-set when status becomes published or is_featured becomes true, and kinds[0] is treated as primary. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether omitted fields are preserved (patch semantics).

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?

Front-loads the core action and field list, then adds conditional side-effects. Two dense sentences with little waste. The long field enumeration is somewhat bulky but justified given 0% schema coverage.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the field set and key side effects but is thin on permission requirements, patch semantics for null/omitted values, and confirmation of what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the 13 patchable fields, giving scope, and adds the kinds[0]=primary rule plus timestamp auto-set behavior. However, it provides no per-parameter meaning for the enum values or null semantics (e.g., setting summary to null), which the bare schema cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('Gallery item'), and enumerates the exact mutable fields, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_gallery_item, delete_gallery_item, and set_gallery_featured. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating the patch-vs-replace semantic (implicit in 'any subset').

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 when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not direct the agent to set_gallery_featured for featured toggling or set_gallery_cover for covers, both of which overlap with fields listed here, leaving potential ambiguity unaddressed.

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