poker_updateTransform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified operations. It lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or response format, which are critical for a mutation tool with no structured annotations.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded for better clarity.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what the update entails (e.g., whether it replaces all operations or merges them). For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('name' as the transformation name to update, 'operations' as an array of new transformation operations). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of operations (e.g., rotate_around_x/y/z and translate) or providing examples. Since the schema is well-documented, a 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 '既存変換の操作を更新します' (Updates operations of an existing transformation) states a clear verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('既存変換の操作' - operations of an existing transformation), but it's somewhat vague about what 'operations' entail and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like poker_updateBody or poker_updateZone, which follow the same pattern 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., needing an existing transformation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like poker_proposeTransform (for creation) or poker_deleteTransform (for deletion), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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