poker_updateBody

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 'updates parameters' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. For a complex update tool with 24 parameters, 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 ('既存立体のパラメータを更新します'), which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. There's no wasted text, making it concise. However, it could be more structured if it included key details upfront.

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 (24 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (e.g., success response, error cases), or provide context on the solid types or parameter constraints beyond the schema. For such a tool, more guidance is needed.

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 detailed descriptions for all 24 parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter (e.g., '新しい底面中心座標' for bottom_center). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with context like parameter interactions.

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 '既存立体のパラメータを更新します' (Updates parameters of an existing solid) clearly states the verb ('updates') and resource ('parameters of an existing solid'), but it's vague about what kind of solid or which parameters. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like poker_updateTransform or poker_updateZone, which also update things. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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_proposeBody (propose) and poker_deleteBody (delete), the description doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., need an existing solid), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. It's a basic statement with no usage instructions.

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