Update Artifact

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

Annotations already convey safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent). The description adds the scoping constraint (user/session) but doesn't disclose behavioral details such as whether fields are fully replaced or merged, beyond what the schema already states. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the operation and scope. No fluff, every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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 8 optional fields, 3 required params, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an update operation: it identifies the entity, the action, and the scope. It doesn't mention return values, but the schema and annotations fill in most gaps. Slightly more detail about merging/overriding semantics could improve it.

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 the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The description's mention of 'fields' is generic; all parameter details are already in the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('fields on an existing artifact'), clearly distinguishing it from create/get/delete/list siblings. Adding 'scoped to a user and session' further clarifies the intended operation.

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 phrase 'existing artifact' implies it should be used when the artifact already exists and needs modification, not for creation or retrieval. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives like 'use create_artifact for new artifacts'.

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