update_moviefile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful hint that the body should be based on the matching GET or /schema endpoint, implying the payload must follow the resource schema. However, it does not disclose whether the update is a full replacement or partial patch, nor any side effects like whether the file path is changed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. It presents the endpoint and parameters in a clean arg-list format. Every line has a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description only minimally covers the update semantics. It correctly tells the agent to consult the schema for the body structure, but it does not explain what makes this endpoint distinct from bulk or editor variants. For a single-resource update, this is adequate but leaves context to be inferred from sibling tool names.

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 by explicitly labeling 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as the request payload, and it directs the caller to read the GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields. This adds meaningful context that is absent from the schema.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'MovieFile', but it is vague about what fields or aspects are updated. The endpoint clarifies that it targets a single ID, but it does not distinguish from siblings like update_moviefile_bulk or update_moviefile_editor. This is more than a tautology because it includes the endpoint, yet the core action is just a rephrasing of the tool name.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_moviefile_bulk or update_moviefile_editor. The only instruction is to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which is about how to construct the body, not about selection context. An agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and sibling list.

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