Update sticker

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds modest value by specifying the exact fields that change (name, description, tags). However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when fields are omitted. The update operation is clearly a mutation, which aligns with 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple update tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core behavior. The schema fills in the parameter details, and the description covers the main use cases. It does not explain the return value or error scenarios, but with no output schema, that burden is limited. Overall, it is adequately complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema covers 5 parameters with descriptions for 'guild' and 'sticker', but only 40% coverage overall. The description helps by mapping 'rename' to the 'name' parameter and explicitly listing 'description' and 'tags', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify optionality or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'sticker' and 'guild' parameters are left to schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename' / 'change') and names the target resource ('sticker') and the mutable attributes (description, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sticker, delete_sticker, and list_stickers.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose update_sticker over create/delete, or any distinction from other update tools. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and schema.

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