update_movie_editor

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb and the endpoint: it does not discuss side effects, scope of updates, auth requirements, or resource protections. The 'read schema first' note is a workflow hint, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded with the endpoint, then immediately gives the one parameter and the key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations, so return-value and safety coverage are partly provided elsewhere. But the description never explains what MovieEditor semantically operates on, when to choose it over nearby update tools, or what the editor endpoint expects in business terms. An agent selecting among the many update_* siblings would still be guessing.

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 is opaque: one required 'body' object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by labeling body as the request payload and explicitly directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields. This is genuinely useful guidance for an otherwise underspecified parameter.

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 names a verb and resource ('Update MovieEditor') and includes the PUT endpoint, so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'MovieEditor' is not self-explanatory: it does not say this is a bulk/editor update of movies or distinguish it from sibling tools like update_movie_by_id. The purpose remains vague without external domain knowledge.

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?

The only guidance is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage policy. There is no statement about when to use this tool versus update_movie_by_id, update_moviefile_editor, or other update variants. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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