Update token

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: unknown fields are refused with their names, every change is read back, and values Foundry stores differently come as warnings. This gives an agent concrete expectations about error handling and response behavior without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences carry a complete description: the first defines the action and field set, the second covers error behavior and read-back semantics. There is no filler, and the most important scoping statement ('not of its actor') is front-loaded.

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 a detailed input schema and annotations, the description covers the allowed fields, the refusal of other fields, and the read-back/warning behavior. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, and the output behavior is sufficiently disclosed even without an output 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 every parameter. The description mostly repeats the field list rather than adding new parameter semantics, though it does reinforce scope by emphasizing token properties and grid-space sizing.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Change properties of a token on the map', and immediately distinguishes it from the actor ('not of its actor'). It enumerates the exact fields and states what is refused, making the tool's scope unmistakable against siblings like move-token or actor-set-token.

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 gives clear context that this is for map-token properties, not actor properties, and lists what is allowed. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer another sibling tool, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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