update_metadata_by_id

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful behavioral hint that the body fields should be discovered from the GET or /schema endpoint, but it does not explain side effects, force_save semantics, or response behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but the Args list largely duplicates the input schema. It is concise without being wasteful, yet it lacks substantive content that would earn each line's place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description does not need to explain return values. However, force_save semantics are missing, and the description does not clarify the update scope or when to use this endpoint versus related metadata tools.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It only restates that id is a path parameter, body is a request payload, and force_save is a query parameter—none of which adds real semantic meaning. The pointer to GET/schema partially compensates for body, but force_save remains unexplained.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Update Metadata') and gives the exact PUT endpoint, so an agent can tell this is the metadata update operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update_*_by_id tools or explain what metadata fields are affected.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_metadata, delete_metadata_by_id, or update_config_metadata_by_id. The advice to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first is a prerequisite for constructing the body, not a usage-selection criterion.

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