update_film

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds behavior they cannot convey: list fields are wholesale replacements ('Replace the genres/directors/writers/cast'), tmdb_id overwrites every metadata field plus poster and credits while preserving rating and review text, and publishing a draft keeps its date. This is exactly the overwrite information an agent needs before mutating.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is the minimum needed given zero schema coverage. A few entries are terse ('Film id.', 'New title.') and the repeated 'See create_film' cross-references add slight redundancy, but nothing wasteful.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be explained), the description covers partial-update semantics, every parameter, enum values, and the side effects of tmdb_id and status changes. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does so: all 12 parameters are documented, including the status enum values (publish or draft), the rating domain (whole number 1-10, 0 for not rated), imdb_url format (full URL), and the replace-vs-refresh distinction between list fields and tmdb_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change anything about an existing film') and immediately scopes it with patch semantics ('Only the fields given change'). It also references create_film as the counterpart tool for field semantics, so an agent can distinguish update from create without opening either schema.

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 patch constraint ('only the fields given change') gives real usage context and the tmdb_id line implies a refresh workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against siblings that also mutate a film (set_rating, write_review, trash_film). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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