update_campaign_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explicitly explains the merge strategy ('world_flags 增量合并（不清旧旗标），其它 key 整体替换'), the auto-creation behavior, and the return value ('返回合并后状态'). This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects.

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 two dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then delivers important merge behavior and return information efficiently.

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 description covers the main behavior, merge rules, and return value, which is useful given the lack of an output schema. However, it leaves key parameter context undocumented (especially 'campaign' and 'variant'), and it does not relate to sibling state-management tools, so the description 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly explains the 'patch' parameter by listing possible keys it can contain. The required 'campaign' parameter and the 'variant' parameter are not described at all, leaving their meaning and default behavior ambiguous.

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 identifies the action ('合并 patch'), the resource ('运行态 state.md'), and the affected key groups ('current/clocks/quests/world_flags 等'). It also distinguishes the tool by specifying exact merge semantics, which separates it from sibling state tools like manage_combat_state.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a patch should be merged into the running campaign state—and adds the useful context that it auto-creates the state file on first use. However, it does not explicitly address when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any usage exclusions.

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