st.character.configure

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a patch (partial update) and that confirmation is required. However, it does not explain side effects, whether snapshots are involved, failure modes, or reversibility, leaving meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a critical requirement appended. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 nested 'fields' object, the required avatar parameter, and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to structure field values, what avatar refers to, what snapshotLabel does, or what the tool returns, so the agent must infer too much.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'fields' with examples and clarifies that confirm must be true, but it leaves the required 'avatar' parameter and 'snapshotLabel' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid request.

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 a specific verb ('Patch') and a specific resource ('core character card fields'), with concrete examples like description, personality, scenario, greetings, and prompts. It makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from generic siblings like st.resource.patch.

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 implies when to use the tool: when patching core character card fields. It also gives a key invocation requirement ('Requires confirm: true'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over st.resource.patch or other character-related tools, so routing guidance is mostly implicit.

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