update_troop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses shallow merge semantics, validation of enemyIds, and the refusal to write on structural errors with a force override. Does not mention return values, but key safety behaviors are 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries unique information—first states the update behavior, second explains validation and override—with zero waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, validation, and safety override. It doesn't describe success return values, but the essentials are present and well articulated.

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%, but description adds meaningful semantics beyond field descriptions: 'shallow merge' and 'each enemyId is validated to exist'. This helps the agent understand the effect of the updates parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Update a troop's properties') with specific scoping (shallow merge, members validation). It distinguishes from create_troop and search_troops by focusing on updating existing troops.

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?

Provides context on when to use force: true and describes validation behavior, implicitly guiding safe usage. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's purpose is clear from context.

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