update-caption

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context that the operation costs 450 quota units and that the file re-upload is optional, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing content, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 sentences that convey the primary function and the quota cost. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded. This is an efficient and well-structured description.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and a key operational detail (quota cost). It does not explain prerequisites like the caption track needing to exist, but 'update' implies that. The lack of return-value explanation is acceptable given no output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by explicitly noting that re-uploading is optional, which aligns with filePath not being required. It does not add deeper meaning about how isDraft and filePath interact, but the schema already handles parameter definitions.

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 purpose: updating a caption track's draft status and optionally re-uploading its file. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('caption track'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload-caption (which uploads new captions) and delete-caption (which deletes captions).

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 for when to use the tool—when you need to modify a caption track's draft status or replace its content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use upload-caption for new captions' or 'don't use this for read-only operations,' so it falls short of a perfect score.

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