poker_updateSource

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. 'Updates parameters' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data not mentioned in the update, whether the operation is atomic or partial, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a complex mutation tool with 6 parameters including nested objects, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complex mutation tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects with oneOf constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update semantics, error handling, permissions, or what constitutes a successful update. The agent would struggle to understand the behavioral context needed to use this tool correctly despite the comprehensive schema.

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 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, constraints, and complex oneOf structures. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify the overall update semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 states the tool 'updates parameters of existing radiation sources' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like poker_updateBody or poker_updateDetector. It specifies 'existing radiation sources' which helps scope the operation, but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this update operation from other update tools in the system.

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. There are multiple sibling update tools (poker_updateBody, poker_updateDetector, etc.) but no indication of when this specific radiation source update tool is appropriate versus other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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