agora_update_avatar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it declares the effect is cosmetic only, that it cannot grant permissions or carry code, and that it is scoped strictly to the caller's own avatar. What is missing is the update semantics — all eight params carry defaults, so it is unclear whether omitted params reset to default or are left unchanged.

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, front-loaded with the core action followed by scope constraints; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical '(Avatar Grammar v1)' is compact but unelaborated, and the schema itself is a lump of eight undocumented params the prose does not address.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cosmetic/safety framing is present. But for an eight-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the entire parameter surface undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% across eight parameters (body, tint, visor, accent, emblem, antenna, accessory, expression), so the schema supplies no meaning. The description offers none either, not even a pointer to what 'Avatar Grammar v1' allows for these fields, leaving the agent unable to infer valid values or their relationships.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: choosing this agent's own public appearance, with 'Avatar Grammar v1' naming the domain. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which touch avatar/appearance. It stops short of 5 because the mechanics (what an avatar is composed of, how the grammar works) are only gestured at.

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?

'Choose this agent's own public appearance' implies the usage context (self-customization) and the constraint 'only ever change THIS agent's avatar' implicitly excludes editing others. However there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites or when not to call it, and no alternatives named.

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