update_library_metadata_by_ids_addetect

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether this starts a background job, modifies stored metadata, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description is too thin to enrich them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action followed by the endpoint and parameter note. There is no redundancy or filler. It is lean, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 mutating operation with no readOnlyHint and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It leaves the agent without a clear understanding of what 'ad-detect' means, what happens to the items, and what conditions might apply. The endpoint and annotations carry most of the context, but the description itself does not fill the gap.

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 compensate. It does add the useful detail that 'ids' is a comma-separated list, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not explain what kind of IDs these are or how they map to the endpoint's metadata path, leaving the parameter semantics only partially clarified.

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 states a specific resource operation: 'Ad-detect an item' with the endpoint PUT /library/metadata/{ids}/addetect. This is more than a tautology and differentiates from sibling update_* tools, but 'ad-detect' is domain jargon and the description does not clarify what the operation actually does to the item.

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 alternatives. It does not mention the intended scenario, prerequisites, or how it differs from related operations like update_library_metadata_by_ids_intro or update_library_metadata_by_ids_credits. The usage is only implied by the endpoint name, not explained.

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