update_dataset

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that a new version is created, which implies a write operation, but it does not mention that old versions can be deleted via delete_old_versions, nor any permissions, side effects, or response behavior. The description is not misleading, but it is significantly under-transparent for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single generic phrase does not convey enough information to offset the missing schema descriptions and annotations. It reads more like a label than a useful tool description.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description is far too minimal to be complete. It does not explain prerequisites, optional behaviors, return values, or the role of the required dir_path parameter. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain dir_path, version_notes, or delete_old_versions, nor how these parameters affect the action. The description therefore fails almost entirely to compensate for the blank schema descriptions.

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 an active verb and specific resource ('new dataset version'), which clearly identifies the core action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like init_dataset or upload_dataset, but the concept of a new version implies updating an existing dataset. This is a clear, non-tautological statement, though it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as init_dataset or upload_dataset. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The only implicit cue is 'new version', which weakly suggests an existing dataset, but this is not actionable guidance.

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