update_metaobject

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: upsert semantics, handle redirection, type immutability, and field clearing. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but the provided details are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose and then sequentially covers key points (upsert behavior, clearing fields, redirect, type restriction). Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, upsert logic, handle management) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral and usage details. It could slightly improve by mentioning the return value (e.g., the updated metaobject), but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains the upsert mechanism for fields, how to clear fields, the condition for redirectNewHandle, and the status constraint. For the fields parameter, it details how to serialize values (primitives as literal strings, JSON types as JSON-encoded), which goes beyond the schema description.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'metaobject', specifying the modifiable aspects (handle, field values, publishable status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_metaobject and delete_metaobject by noting that the type cannot be changed, thereby preventing misuse.

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 explicit 'how-to' guidance: fields are upserted by key, pass only changed fields, clear a field with empty string, use redirectNewHandle for handle changes, and note that type requires delete and recreate. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., when needing to change the type), though that is implied.

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