update_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'shallow merge into the existing record' reveals that the update is a merge, not a full replacement, which is valuable context. However, it omits other important traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, and what response is returned, so it is only partially transparent.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the key merge behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or verbose explanation.

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 core purpose and merge behavior, and the schema adequately documents all parameters. However, without an output schema or annotations, important context about return values, error behavior, and side effects is missing. For a simple update tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that the 'updates' object is shallow-merged into the existing record, which is not stated in the parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand how the updates parameter behaves.

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 identifies the operation ('Update') and the target resource ('a state's properties'), and the parenthetical 'shallow merge into the existing record' adds precision about the update semantics. This distinguishes it from other update_* tools that target different resources (e.g., update_actor).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and sibling context, but it does not mention any alternatives or prerequisites.

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