update_track

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds that PUT semantics are partial, which is helpful. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization needs or error handling, but the annotations already provide basic safety info.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds critical detail about partial update semantics with an example. Every sentence earns its 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?

Given the tool has two params, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description explains partial update and gives a common example. However, it does not cover what happens on missing trackId, return values, or how to obtain trackId, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 50%: trackId lacks description, but fields has a description that repeats tool semantics and adds an example. The tool description reinforces partial update meaning for fields. However, it does not clarify trackId beyond schema constraints, so the burden is partially unmet.

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. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'apply_track' or 'remove_track', so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides partial update semantics and a common use case example. However, it does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'apply_track' or 'remove_track', nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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