update_title_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it states that only provided fields are updated, unknown names only warn (never block), and the tool returns updated settings. This goes beyond the schema and covers the most important behavioral nuances for a mutation tool, though it does not address permissions or reversibility.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place by adding functional detail (partial update, asset validation, return value). No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given five parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names all update targets, provides asset-source guidance, explains validation behavior, and states the return value. It does not restate dryRun semantics, but the schema already documents that parameter, so the description is sufficient overall.

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 groups parameters into background layers and BGM, which helps conceptually, but the individual parameter descriptions already explain each field. The description adds modest semantic value but mainly restates what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Update the title screen') and elaborates the exact aspects it covers: background layers (title1Name/title2Name), BGM, and whether the game title is drawn. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_title_screen (read-only) and update_game_title (text-oriented) tools.

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 clear context: fields are sourced from list_assets, only provided fields are changed, and unknown assets produce warnings rather than blocking. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion cases, but it implicitly distinguishes this from get_title_screen by focusing on update semantics.

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