update_library_metadata_by_ids_split

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the basic safety/mutation profile, and the description adds no context about side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the original metadata item. 'Split a metadata item' restates the action without disclosing behavior such as whether split creates new metadata records or only re-links existing parts.

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 compact: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and the parameter format, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and keeps each line useful.

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 tool with an output schema and straightforward annotations, the description is minimally viable: it gives the endpoint and parameter format. It remains thin on domain context—what 'split' means, prerequisites, and when to use it—so a cautious agent would need external knowledge to invoke it with full confidence.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the Args line is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully adds 'Comma-separated list of IDs,' clarifying the expected string format beyond the bare 'Ids' title, but it does not define what the IDs identify or any constraints.

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 opens with 'Split a metadata item,' a clear verb+resource statement that tells an agent the operation applies a split action to metadata. It is not fully differentiated from the many sibling update_library_metadata_by_ids_* tools, and 'split' is left undefined, but the core action 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?

No sentence explains when this tool should be chosen over siblings such as update_library_metadata_by_ids_merge, update_library_metadata_by_ids_match, or the generic update_library_metadata_by_ids. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative references, so an agent receives no usage guidance.

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