update_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' signals mutation, but the description does not state whether metadata is overwritten wholesale or patched, whether the operation is reversible, whether it errors if the model does not exist, or what happens to existing metadata not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — at 8 words it conveys too little to properly orient an agent, especially with empty parameter descriptions and no annotations.

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 low structural complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the bar for completeness is higher, and the description fails to meet it. It omits the meaning of 'from folder', the model-vs-model-instance distinction that the sibling list implies matters, return values, and error behavior. An agent cannot reliably decide to call this tool or format its input correctly from this definition alone.

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% — the 'folder' parameter has an empty description, so the prose must compensate. The phrase 'from folder' hints that the folder is central to the operation, but it does not explain what the folder should contain (e.g., a config file, metadata fields, a model ID reference), its format, or whether it is a local path or remote reference. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update model metadata'), so the core action is identifiable. However, 'from folder' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether the folder is the source of metadata values, the location of the model, or the container being read. The description also fails to distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'update_model_instance', which is a significant differentiation gap given the large sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_model, init_model, or update_model_instance. There are no when/when-not conditions, no prerequisites (e.g., must the model already exist?), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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