update_weapon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key behavioral trait—'shallow merge'—indicating that existing properties not included in the update remain unchanged. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return values, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update a weapon's properties') and adds a valuable behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a simple update tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the essential operation and merge behavior. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects. The parameter schema fills in some gaps, but the description alone is not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, but the 'shallow merge' qualifier indirectly clarifies how the 'updates' parameter is applied. This meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states 'Update a weapon's properties' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling update tools (e.g., update_actor, update_item). The addition of 'shallow merge into the existing record' further clarifies the exact behavior, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or contrast with sibling tools like create_weapon or update_item. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context or alternatives are given.

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