Update an artist

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must cover behavioral traits. While it correctly indicates a mutation operation, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on related data beyond the partial update note.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant text. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides key usage instruction. Efficient and well-front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sibling tools, the description is minimal. It omits return behavior, error scenarios, required permissions, and does not reference the output. It relies on the agent to infer context from the create_artist reference.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description adds value by reiterating the partial update intent and referencing create_artist for field details. However, the artist_id parameter lacks any description in the schema or tool description, limiting overall clarity.

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 it updates an artist (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like create_artist by specifying partial update behavior ('Supply only the fields you want to change'), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 usage guidance on how to use the tool ('supply only fields to change'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_artist or delete_artist. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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