update_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses constraints (English only, char limits, no PII), and that only summary/content can be updated. While it does not detail success response or idempotency, the output schema likely covers return values, making this adequate.

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 concise (~80 words), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence is necessary. It uses clear structure: purpose/usage, then constraints. No redundant information.

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 the low complexity (3 params, two optional) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and parameter behavior. It lacks mention of error conditions or success confirmation, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by restating constraints and clarifying that at least one of summary or content should be provided ('Provide summary and/or content'), which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 updates an artifact when guidance is incomplete, wrong, or needs refinement. It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (artifact), and distinguishes from siblings like create_artifact by emphasizing preference for updating over creating duplicates.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use immediately upon learning better information or user correction, and prefer updating over creating duplicates. Includes constraints and the context to focus on what/why, making it easy for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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