yougile_update_string_sticker

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the specific 'soft-delete' behavior, which is useful beyond the generic annotation. It does not contradict annotations and avoids overexplaining obvious traits.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes a crucial parameter clarification. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundant 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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers required context: what the tool does and a key field naming pitfall. It could mention outcomes like successful return values, but the schema and annotations already provide sufficient operational context for an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds extra value by warning to use 'name' (not 'title'), which is a parameter-usage clarification not present in the schema. This helps prevent a common mistake and justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool updates a string sticker, specifying the two update actions: renaming and soft-deleting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the sticker itself, not its state (which is handled by a separate tool). The additional 'Use name field (not title)' clarification further disambiguates the intended API contract.

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 implies usage: if you need to rename or soft-delete a string sticker, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_string_sticker_state for state-related changes, nor does it provide scenarios where one should prefer a different tool. The guidance is limited but not misleading.

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