update_movie_by_id

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the PUT method and the hint to fetch the current resource schema before sending a body, but it does not explain the effect of move_files or whether unspecified body fields are preserved.

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 a compact endpoint line followed by a short bullet list, with no filler or repeated annotation. It is well front-loaded, though its terseness is responsible for some of the semantic gaps noted above.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the need to describe return values and safety, and the instruction to consult GET//schema gives a viable path for constructing the body. Still, the description leaves move_files unexplained and says nothing about single-item vs batch update selection, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter semantics. It usefully marks id as a path parameter, body as the payload to be shaped via GET//schema, and move_files as a query parameter, but move_files receives no behavioral meaning and id lacks format information.

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 clearly states the operation as 'Update Movie' and supplies the exact PUT endpoint with an {id} path segment, so an agent can tell it targets a single Movie resource. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as update_movie_editor, so it misses the top tier.

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?

Use for updating a single movie by id is implied by the endpoint and operation name, and the body guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first provides practical call-time instructions. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling (e.g., update_movie_editor) handles related cases.

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