get_library_metadata_by_id_parent

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral information beyond the HTTP GET and the parent relationship. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose anything like response semantics, errors, or special cases.

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 very short and front-loads the endpoint and core purpose. The Args section mostly duplicates the schema, creating slight redundancy, but overall the size is appropriate and there is no unnecessary prose.

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 simple read-only endpoint with an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, it does not explain what 'parent' means in the library hierarchy or when an agent should prefer this over sibling navigation tools, so a caller must infer important context from the tool name and sibling list.

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%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It adds 'The unique identifier of the item,' which is slightly more meaningful than the schema's bare 'Id' title, but it remains generic and does not explain the nature or scope of the id within the library metadata context.

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 phrase 'Get Metadata Parent' and the endpoint 'GET /library/metadata/{id}/parent' clearly identify the operation and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_library_metadata_by_id_children, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling metadata navigation tools such as get_library_metadata_by_id_children, grandparent, or nearest. The description only states the mechanics, leaving selection to the tool name and endpoint.

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