poker_updateZone

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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the zone doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, if it affects related entities, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens on success/failure, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of updating physical properties (density with min/max constraints) in what appears to be a physics/simulation context, more behavioral context 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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions '材料や密度' (material and density) which aligns with two parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage. 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 action ('更新します' - updates) and the target resource ('既存ゾーンの材料や密度' - existing zone's material and density). It distinguishes from siblings like 'poker_updateBody' or 'poker_updateUnit' by specifying it updates zones specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'zone' refers to in this context.

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 zone), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'poker_updateBody' or 'poker_proposeZone'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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