update_episodefile_editor

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds the advice to consult GET or /schema first, which is a behavioral hint about how to obtain valid payload structure. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is fair.

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 succinct, with the action stated first and a clear 'Args' section. It avoids extraneous wording and is easy to parse. It loses a point only because the minimal content limits its utility, not because of structural waste.

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 mutation tool with an open body schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields are required, how the update behaves, or any constraints, instead redirecting the agent to external endpoints. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description still lacks the operational context needed to confidently invoke this tool.

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 has only a 'body' object with additionalProperties=true, giving 0% coverage of actual fields. The description points to GET or /schema to discover fields, which is a workaround but does not define any parameter semantics. It fails to specify expected keys, value formats, or constraints, so the agent must perform extra lookups to use the tool correctly.

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 'Update EpisodeFile' which is a generic action on the resource, but it does not differentiate this endpoint from siblings like update_episodefile_by_id or update_episodefile_bulk. The name 'editor' hints at a batch or editor mode, but the description offers no such detail, so an agent cannot tell which specific operation is intended.

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 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects,' which tells the agent to look up the schema but does not explain when to use this tool versus the alternative update endpoints. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this 'editor' is appropriate.

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