update_song

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says columns can be replaced but never states that supplied columns overwrite the existing structure wholesale (that nuance lives in the schema), nor what happens if the slug is unknown or the new_slug already exists.

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 core action followed by the supported modes, with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence compresses three distinct operations into a list without elaboration.

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 five-parameter mutation with nested column objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits failure behavior, rename-collision handling, and any indication of what the caller gets back, leaving an agent to guess at edge cases.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only a loose mapping of the three change modes to columns/metadata/new_slug, with no syntax or interaction details beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates an existing song") and enumerates the three supported change modes: metadata, columns, and slug rename. This distinguishes it from create_song and delete_song by implication, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Existing song" implies create_song is the tool for new songs, and "partial" clarifies that full replacement isn't required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of preconditions such as the slug needing to already exist.

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