update_troop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses shallow merge semantics, member validation, and the critical failure behavior where structurally invalid writes are refused and nothing is saved, plus the force override. This goes well beyond a basic 'update' statement.

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 efficiently written sentences. The first states the purpose and merge behavior; the second covers validation and safety. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is complex with nested objects, validation, and failure modes. The description covers the key behavioral aspects well, including scope and safety. It does not explicitly describe the success return format, though the schema's `verbose` parameter hints at it. This is a minor gap given no output schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 valuable semantic detail beyond the schema by explaining that updates are shallow-merged and that members are validated. This enriches the `updates` parameter and the `force` parameter, justifying a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('a troop's properties') and adds the scope note '(shallow merge)', which differentiates it from create or replace operations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_troop or 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to modify an existing troop's properties. It also provides context about validation and the force override. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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