update_episodefile_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering idempotency and non-destructive nature. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and the need to fetch schema, but does not elaborate on side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the resource is missing. It adds some context beyond annotations but not substantial detail.

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, an HTTP line, and two argument bullets. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core action. However, the argument section is terse, and the guidance to fetch schema is a hint rather than a full explanation, so it is efficient but slightly under-informative.

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 open body (additionalProperties true) and an output schema, but the description does not clarify whether the PUT is a full or partial update, what fields are commonly expected, or any error cases. It does point to the schema endpoint as a fallback, which is helpful, but the overall context is incomplete for a complex resource update. An agent would need to make extra calls to use it safely.

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 identifies 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload, but the only semantic guidance is to read the GET/schema endpoint—it does not describe any expected fields, structure, or constraints. This is minimal and forces the agent to rely on external lookups, which is inadequate for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 'Update EpisodeFile' and provides the REST endpoint (PUT /api/v3/episodefile/{id}), which makes the verb and resource specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_episodefile_bulk or update_episodefile_editor, so an agent must infer from the name that this targets a single resource by ID.

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 before supplying the body. This implies the body shape is schema-driven but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bulk/editor variants, nor when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context underspecified.

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