update-rolltable

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does so by noting GM-only, that supplying results deletes existing entries and recreates them, and that ranges are auto-assigned. This fully covers the behavioral aspects.

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, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and lists fields, then adds important behavioral notes. Every sentence carries weight.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the update behavior. It mentions GM-only and the effect on results. Could optionally mention that the table must exist, but that is implied by 'update'. Overall sufficient for an update tool with 7 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the effect of 'results' (deletion/recreation) and noting the auto-assignment of ranges. It also explicitly lists the updatable fields, reinforcing the schema.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('RollTable'). It lists the specific updatable fields and explains the behavior of the 'results' parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create-rolltable' and 'delete-rolltable'.

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 states GM-only, which is a crucial usage condition. It also explains when to use results (to replace entire set) vs fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like 'roll-on-table' or 'import-rolltable'.

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