update_faction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on usage, behavior, parameters, and output, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning all parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain the nested 'update_faction' object or its properties like 'name' or 'goals'.

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 the action ('update') and resource ('existing faction in the knowledge graph'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like update_artifact or update_npc, nor does it specify what aspects of a faction can be updated beyond the generic term.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing faction), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like add_faction or delete_faction, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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