update_character

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Update an existing character' only implies mutation; it does not state whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, what happens if the character ID does not exist, whether permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Update an existing character' largely restates the tool name and adds only the word 'existing'. It does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the name.

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?

With three required parameters, one being a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. There is no explanation of the nested structure of 'data', the necessity of 'campaignId', or the expected result. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'data' contains the fields to update, what 'id' refers to, or the role of 'campaignId'. The agent is left without any understanding of how to populate the three required parameters.

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 ('existing character'), which identifies the operation clearly. It distinguishes itself from create_character and delete_character by the word 'existing', though it does not specify what fields or aspects of the character are updated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_character, get_character, or delete_character. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'existing character', but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusion rules.

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