update_track

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about partial PUT semantics, which the agent needs to know for correct invocation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

While the basic usage is clear, the description omits return value or behavior (e.g., what happens on success/failure). Given no output schema, it could be more complete.

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 description adds context for the 'fields' parameter (partial update, common use), but does not describe the 'id' parameter. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description partially compensates for 'fields' but not '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?

The description clearly states 'Update a track instance' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions partial update semantics, which distinguishes it from create or delete tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_track'.

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?

It explains the partial update approach and gives a common use case, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., 'apply_track' for initial application).

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