update_race

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation but doesn't clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether permissions are needed, or what happens to fields not included in 'data'. This is too sparse 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 one-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the verb, with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices necessary substance for brevity, making it under-specified for a tool with three required parameters.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It omits any explanation of the data payload, campaign scoping, or update behavior, leaving an agent unable to safely construct a valid request.

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%, yet the description names none of the three parameters. 'data' is an untyped object in the schema and remains completely unexplained in the description, and the meaning of 'id' and 'campaignId' is also unaddressed. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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 ('existing race'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_race, delete_race, and get_race. It is unambiguous enough for an agent to know the core operation, though it doesn't mention updatable fields.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_race or delete_race, no prerequisites such as fetching the race first, and no mention of campaign scoping. An agent must infer from the schema that an existing ID is required, but there is no decision support.

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