Update durable world information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that updates are 'durable' and that transient narration is out of scope, but it never states whether the update overwrites or merges existing fields, whether it is destructive, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and object, the second adds a meaningful boundary instruction. Every word earns its place, and the durable/transient distinction 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters. The description is too thin to be complete: it omits return value behavior, update semantics (merge vs. overwrite), and any guidance on the content fields. An agent could call this correctly only by opening the schema and guessing at the meaning of the undocumented fields.

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 only 25% (only worldId is documented), and per the rubric the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters (name, summary, description). The phrase 'durable framing' provides only loose thematic context and never maps to individual parameters, so an agent gets little help understanding what to put in name, summary, or description.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a world's durable framing'), and the 'durable' qualifier sets it apart from read-oriented siblings like list_worlds and get_world_overview. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the 'apply_world_changes' sibling, whose name could plausibly describe the same operation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives one explicit exclusion: 'Do not record transient narration here,' which implies the tool is reserved for persistent lore rather than scene-level content. But it names no alternatives (e.g., set_current_scene or apply_world_changes for transient work) and provides no positive guidance on when this tool should be selected, leaving usage mostly implied.

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