Update a registered model version's description by specifying model name, version, and new description text.
Update the description of a model version.
Args: name: Name of the registered model. version: Model version number. description: New description text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond 'update' – it doesn't confirm side effects, authorization needs, or error states. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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: two succinct sentences plus a parameter list. No wasted words, and every sentence serves a purpose.
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 simple update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. However, it misses edge cases (e.g., version must exist, return behavior) and does not relate to sibling tools. Given the low complexity, a 3 is adequate.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must add meaning. It explains that 'name' is the registered model name, 'version' is the version number, and 'description' is the new text. This provides crucial context that the schema titles alone lack, though more detail (e.g., version format) would strengthen it.
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 'Update the description of a model version,' which is a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_model_version, delete_model_version, and transition_model_version_stage that perform different operations.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions (e.g., version must exist), or exclusions relative to other update tools like set_model_alias or set_registered_model_tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.