update_armor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of shallow merging, which indicates updates are merged rather than replacing the whole record. However, it does not disclose what happens if the armor ID does not exist, whether changes are reversible, or any error behavior.

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 of under 15 words, front-loading the core purpose and adding the key merge behavior without any filler. Every word contributes.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and merge behavior, and the schema documents all parameters. However, given it is a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks important context such as error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the armor is missing. The dryRun parameter is mentioned in the schema but no behavioral context is provided beyond that.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The description adds meaningful context by noting 'shallow merge', which clarifies how the 'updates' object is applied – it merges fields rather than replacing the entire record. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Object containing armor properties to update'.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update an armor's properties'. The parenthetical 'shallow merge into the existing record' adds specific behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_actor or create_armor, though the resource is obvious from the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the armor needing to exist, or contrast with create_armor. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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