Update Caption Track

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the update operation. The description adds that file replacement happens via streaming from disk, and that updating only isDraft is a metadata-only change. No contradictions; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, detailed explanation, separate Args/Returns/Examples/Errors sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a JSON example of the return value. It covers all 3 parameters, includes error handling, and gives examples covering key use cases. An agent can confidently use the tool based on this description.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral implications of using isDraft vs filePath, and includes examples. This goes beyond repeating schema descriptions.

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 the action: update an existing caption track's draft status and/or replace its content. It specifies the resource (caption track) and distinct actions, distinguishing it from siblings like upload_caption (create) and delete_caption (delete).

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 clear context on when to use filePath vs isDraft, and includes examples for different scenarios. It also lists error codes (403, 404) indicating prerequisites, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like upload or delete.

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