registry_update_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is an update operation and mentions 'allowlisted' as a restriction, but it does not say whether updates merge or replace fields, what happens to unmentioned metadata, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has seven parameters, none described in the schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about field semantics, the meaning of 'allowlisted', or update behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 must compensate, but it only vaguely refers to 'allowlisted metadata fields' and 'existing agent'. It does not explain the meaning or allowed values of tags, owner, model_id, repo_url, description, or environment, though it does at least signal that agent_id identifies an existing agent.

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 a specific action (update) on a specific resource (allowlisted metadata fields for an existing agent). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are mostly read/status/session/prompt/metric operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as registry_get_agent or registry_list_agents. It implies an existing agent must be targeted but does not explain prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.

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