update_creature

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. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether it requires ownership or special permissions, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response will contain.

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 phrase 'Update an existing creature' is so terse that it essentially restates the tool name with the word 'existing'. While it is front-loaded and free of fluff, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since critical information is missing.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters including a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no information about required data shape, return values, failure modes, or behavioral semantics, making the description insufficient for correct 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%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters. The 'data' object, 'id', and 'campaignId' are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent without any guidance on what values to supply or how the data object should be structured.

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 clear verb ('update') and resource ('creature'), and the word 'existing' helps distinguish it from create_creature and delete_creature. It is slightly generic because it does not indicate what aspects of the creature can be updated, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_creature or get_creature. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the creature needing to already exist, nor any exclusion criteria or alternative tool suggestions.

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