get_editable_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the three things returned (fields, tags, lock state), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what 'locked' implies for follow-up edits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents are placed immediately after the verb. It is perhaps slightly over-compressed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. It stops short of explaining the concept of 'locked fields' or the intended workflow (inspect before editing), leaving the agent to infer the tool's role.

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% for the single ratingKey parameter, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the key's format or where to obtain it, which is the correct baseline when the schema already documents it.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a concrete resource and return categories ('editable fields, available tags and locked fields') scoped to a media item. Clear without opening the schema, but it does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, get_media_details, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The obvious use case – calling this before an edit/update to learn what can be changed and which fields are locked – is never stated, nor is how it differs from get_media_details.

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