update-region

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it's a partial update (patches only passed parameters), leaves behaviors untouched, and is GM-only. While it doesn't detail return values or error handling, it provides essential behavioral context for safe use.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and capabilities. Every word serves a purpose—no redundancy. It efficiently conveys all key details without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters and nested objects, the description covers core functionality: partial update, GM restriction, and rect convenience. It omits the interaction between rect and shapes (schema covers it), but overall provides sufficient context for correct tool use.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rect convenience as a 'move/resize' action and clarifying shapes replacement. It reinforces the patch semantics, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 single region by ID and lists specific attributes: rename, recolor, change visibility, replace shapes, or reshape via rect. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-region and delete-region, and notes it's GM-only, providing a specific verb and resource focus.

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 for modifying existing regions, mentioning 'GM-only' as a constraint and explaining the rect convenience. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes usage clear. The patch behavior is highlighted, aiding decision-making.

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