get_editable_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description simply restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose return format, pagination, permissions, or what 'available tags' means beyond the basic read-only nature.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get') and the resource ('editable fields and available tags'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'editable fields' refers to (field definitions vs. current values) and whether 'available tags' are library-level or item-specific, which could affect correct invocation and output interpretation.

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% with ratingKey described as 'The rating key of the media item.' The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it relies fully on 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 clearly states the tool gets 'editable fields and available tags' for a media item, which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_media_details by specifying 'editable fields' rather than general details, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus related tools like update_metadata or get_media_details. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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