update_enemy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses merge semantics (shallow, not deep), the return shape `{ enemy, warnings? }`, and a non-obvious warn-by-default behavior for a `battlerName` missing from the image folders. It does not cover permission/auth requirements, but the mutation semantics and warning behavior are otherwise well surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact clause on return shape and warning behavior. Information-dense with no filler, though the em-dash clause is slightly dense 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 mutation tool with a nested-object parameter and no output schema, the description supplies merge semantics, return shape, and warning behavior — enough for correct invocation. Missing auth/permission context is a minor gap given the schema documents all three parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `updates` is applied as a shallow merge and by describing how the `battlerName` field in `updates` triggers a warning — behavior the schema does not convey.

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 ('Update an enemy's properties') and immediately qualifies the operation with 'shallow merge into the existing record', which distinguishes it from create_enemy and search_enemies. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Update an enemy's properties', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like update_actor or create_enemy. Adequate but with a clear gap in comparative routing.

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