updateVersion

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint: false, indicating a mutation. The description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond the verb 'update' – no mention of side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or any operational nuances. With minimal annotation coverage, the description fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavioral profile.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads nothing useful and omits essential detail, making it an inefficient use of the two words. It does not earn its place because it adds no value over the tool name.

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 tool with nested body parameters, multiple enums, and mandatory path parameters, a two-word description is utterly inadequate. There is no indication of what payload to construct, what the response might be, or any constraints. The output schema is absent, and the description provides no guidance, leaving the agent without the information needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has two complex parameters (pathParams and bodyParams) with nested objects and enums, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description 'Update version' provides no information about parameter meaning, required fields (e.g., versionId, format), or what properties can be updated (name, status, sharing, etc.). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Update version' repeats the tool name 'updateVersion' verbatim, offering no additional specificity about what updating a version entails or what fields are affected. It is a tautology that barely clarifies the tool's purpose beyond the name itself.

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 context is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like createVersion, deleteVersion, or getVersions. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or any guidance to aid tool selection among the many siblings.

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