update-metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that modifies data.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. The second sentence provides critical deprecation notice and an alternative. No extraneous information is included; every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 lack of annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and param context, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation implications, permissions) and does not explain return values or error conditions. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex raw metadata, it is moderately complete but leaves gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that metadata is a 'raw metadata object forwarded as-is' and that itemId defaults to an environment variable. This provides context beyond the schema, but does not significantly enhance understanding of the individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'store listing metadata of a Chrome Web Store item' using the v1.1 API. Mentions support for common fields and raw metadata, distinguishing it from the alternative tool update-metadata-ui which is a newer version. However, it does not fully differentiate the two tools' use cases beyond the deprecation notice.

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?

Explicitly notes that the v1 API is deprecated and will be removed by Oct 15, 2026, and directs users to use update-metadata-ui as an alternative. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus the UI alternative (e.g., for programmatic access or raw metadata payloads) beyond the deprecation context.

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