modrinth_modify_version

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that the target must be an existing published version and that files are not uploaded. However, it does not clarify partial-update semantics: when omitting optional fields, those fields remain unchanged, are reset, or some other behavior. This gap could lead the agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the essential action and ends with an important boundary. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is enough to know what the tool does and where it applies, but it is still a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output or side-effect details. It doesn't mention partial update semantics, what happens when omitted fields are used, or return value expectations, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

The schema has very low individual property description coverage (14%), but the description lists all editable metadata fields. This provides grouping context, yet it does not explain meanings or constraints beyond the few schema types. The description partially compensates for the schema gap, but doesn't fully describe values like 'loaders' or 'game_versions' beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit'), identifies the exact resource ('metadata of an EXISTING published version'), and enumerates the fields affected. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from file-upload operations, making the tool's function unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like modrinth_create_version.

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 clearly implies this is for modifying existing versions rather than creating or uploading, and the phrase 'Does not upload files' provides a useful exclusion. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the target use case is evident from the wording and sibling tool names.

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