update_enemy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shallow-merge behavior, the return shape `{ enemy, warnings? }`, and a specific validation warning for battlerName not found in img/enemies. However, it omits what happens if enemyId is not found (error vs. null) or any permission/rollback details, preventing a 5.

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 short sentences front-load the primary action and merge semantics, then provide return format and a key detail. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 adequately covers the return contract and a notable behavioral nuance (battlerName warning). Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested updates object, dryRun param), it lacks explicit information about error handling or dryRun behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the core usage is clear. This is complete enough for most update scenarios.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for the `updates` parameter by specifying that a `battlerName` value is validated against img/enemies and warns by default. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'object' description, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Update an enemy's properties') and distinguishes it from siblings like create_enemy and update_actor. The key differentiator 'shallow merge into the existing record' adds precision beyond just 'update', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for modifying an existing enemy via its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_enemy or update_actor. No exclusions or alternative tool referrals are provided, so guidance is only implied by the name and context.

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