poker_updateDetector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. It mentions updating parameters but doesn't clarify if all parameters must be provided or if partial updates are allowed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameter details, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex system with multiple update tools.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 '既存検出器のパラメータを更新します' (Updates parameters of an existing detector) clearly states the action (update) and target resource (detector parameters). It distinguishes from siblings like poker_deleteDetector and poker_proposeDetector by specifying 'update' rather than delete or create. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from poker_updateBody or poker_updateZone which have similar update patterns for different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., detector must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new detectors), or refer to sibling tools like poker_proposeDetector for creation or poker_deleteDetector for removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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