poker_changeOrderBuildupFactor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('changes the order') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutation or proposal, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or if there are side effects. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying what 'buildup factors' are in this context) to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 of a reordering operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'buildup factors' are, how the order affects the system, what the valid range for 'newIndex' is beyond the schema's minimum, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a technical domain, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'material' (material name to reorder) and 'newIndex' (new index position). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'ビルドアップ係数の順序を変更します' (changes the order of buildup factors) states a clear verb ('変更します' - changes) and resource ('ビルドアップ係数の順序' - order of buildup factors), but it's vague about what exactly is being reordered. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'poker_updateBuildupFactor' or 'poker_proposeBuildupFactor', leaving ambiguity about whether this is a proposal, update, or direct mutation.

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. With siblings like 'poker_updateBuildupFactor' and 'poker_proposeBuildupFactor', the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other buildup factor operations. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's specific role.

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