nexo_artifact_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavior that only non-empty fields are changed (sparse update). However, it omits critical details such as the return value, error handling (e.g., if ID does not exist), and whether the operation is idempotent or has side effects. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral constraint. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the basic operation and sparse update behavior, but does not describe the return value, potential errors, or the merging behavior of fields like 'metadata' (though hinted in schema). For an AI agent, response format knowledge is important for interpreting results. The description meets minimal viability but has gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, except the general note about non-empty fields applying to all parameters. The schema already explains each parameter's purpose and default values. No extra semantic context is provided.

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 an existing artifact.' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_artifact_create, nexo_artifact_delete, nexo_artifact_find, and nexo_artifact_list by indicating it modifies an existing artifact. The additional clause 'Only non-empty fields are changed.' provides essential behavioral nuance.

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 implies when to use (when updating an existing artifact) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like nexo_artifact_create for new artifacts or nexo_artifact_delete for removal. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the sibling names.

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