track_update

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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: 'Creates automatic backup.' This adds safety context, but without annotations, it does not fully cover other important behaviors like merge semantics (whether provided fields replace all metadata or only selected fields), permissions, or error handling.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the purpose and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded structure ensures clarity.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, permission requirements, merge semantics, or how updates are applied. The statement about backup is helpful but does not make the tool description 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. It says 'metadata' but provides no details about the 'updates' object structure or the meaning of fields beyond what the schema property names already show. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Update metadata for a single track.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (metadata for a track), and the qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_updateBatch.

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 provides clear context by specifying it operates on a single track, implying it is not for batch updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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