Update a track license

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

The description states that the tool replaces file and/or metadata, implying mutation, but does not disclose behaviors such as overwrite semantics, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified fields. Annotations provide no additional clarity (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint).

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and no superfluous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers required parameters and lists optional ones, but lacks details on return values, side effects, and whether unspecified fields are overwritten or preserved. With no output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for required parameters 'track_license_id' (source) and 'file_path' (submit file), but only lists optional parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'replace' and clearly identifies the resource as 'track license'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_track_license and delete_track_license by focusing on updating an existing license.

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 mentions that track_license_id comes from list_track_licenses, providing a prerequisite. It indicates that optional fields can be updated, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_track_license (for creating new licenses).

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