update_content_artifacts

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits: the update is additive ('Append') and guarded by optimistic revision control. This implies expected_revision is checked and stale revisions may fail, but it does not explain what happens on mismatch, whether arrays are appended or replaced, which fields are overwritten, or any side effects. With no annotations available, the operational risk is largely undisclosed.

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 sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief from a structural standpoint, though the terseness leaves some terms ('local-artifact') ambiguous.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: 11 parameters, nested objects, required revision field, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-sentence description is not nearly enough for an agent to construct a valid call confidently. It lacks preconditions, expected_revision behavior, update semantics for partial changes, and clarification of optional fields.

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 had to compensate by explaining the 11 parameters. It only hints at the broad category ('metadata or local-artifact') and ties expected_revision to optimistic concurrency. The nested artifacts object, the semantics of fields like terminology/jurisdictions/source_urls, and how optional fields interact with the update are left unexplained.

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 identifies a specific action ('Append') on a recognizable resource class ('metadata or local-artifact') and introduces the distinctive concurrency mechanism ('optimistic revision control'). It is not tautological and gives the agent a working idea of the operation, though it does not explicitly say the target is a content record identified by slug or distinguish it from sibling update/record tools.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tool names are mentioned. The phrase 'metadata or local-artifact update' implies an editing context rather than publication logging or social recording, but the agent must infer this from sibling names and general semantics. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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