update-walls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Patches only the fields you pass; an off-enum value skips that patch with a warning' and mentions GM-only, but omits return format, rate limits, or authentication details.

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 long but well-structured with examples and parenthetical codes. Every sentence is informative, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complex parameter array and lack of output schema, the description covers nearly all input details and patch behavior. Missing only a brief mention of what the tool returns (if anything).

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema descriptions (e.g., 'door:2' for secret, 'ds: 0/1/2', 'a wall never half-moves'), making parameter usage much clearer.

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 states 'Edit one or more WALLS by id' and lists specific properties like door, ds, move/light/sight/sound, clearly distinguishing from create-walls, delete-walls, and list-walls among siblings.

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 provides explicit context like 'GM-only' and explains patch behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings beyond the initial verb.

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