poker_proposeUnit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions '4キー完全性保証' (guarantees completeness of 4 keys), which adds behavioral context about required parameters. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether this writes to the YAML file), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a moderate 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence in Japanese that efficiently states the purpose, condition, and key guarantee. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, earning its place fully.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage condition but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects) and return values. For a tool that likely modifies a YAML file (implied by '提案します'), more context on outcomes would be helpful.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 4 keys are mandatory ('4キー完全性保証'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like usage examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '単位設定セクションを提案します' (proposes a unit settings section). It specifies the condition 'YAMLファイルに未存在の場合のみ' (only when not already existing in the YAML file), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'poker_updateUnit' or 'poker_getUnit', which would require 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 provides clear context for usage: 'YAMLファイルに未存在の場合のみ' (only when not already existing in the YAML file). This indicates when to use this tool (for initial proposal) versus alternatives like update tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, preventing a score of 5.

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