update-rolltable

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: results is destructive (deletes and recreates entries), editResults leaves other entries byte-identical, bad edits are isolated and reported, range overlap/gap is warned, and uuid references to SRD are refused. It also notes GM-only restriction.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the overarching purpose and then detailing the two modes. Every sentence provides essential information, though some redundancy (e.g., repeated warnings) could be trimmed. It remains efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, two modes, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter behavior, mode differences, SRD restrictions, error handling, and access restrictions (GM-only). It adequately prepares the agent to use the tool correctly without gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the difference between editResults and results, the auto-assignment of ranges, the SRD restriction, and the use of `name` vs `text` vs `uuid`. For editResults, it clarifies how to target entries via `roll` or `resultId`. This significantly aids the agent in using parameters correctly.

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 that the tool updates RollTable fields and entries, with two distinct modes: targeted edits via editResults or destructive whole-set replace via results. It distinguishes itself from create-rolltable and delete-rolltable by specifying updating behavior.

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 explicitly tells when to use each mode: editResults for fixing individual entries (e.g., a typo) while preserving others, and results for replacing all entries. It implies to use get-rolltable for reading, and notes that the tool is GM-only, providing clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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