update_rom_user_properties

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation that is non-destructive and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope that updates are limited to the token owner's properties, but it does not disclose partial-update behavior, null semantics, or response 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?

Single sentence with no filler; the operation, resource, and scope are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with seven mostly-optional properties, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential owner-scoped intent. It does not specify update semantics for omitted fields, but the schema and output schema cover the remaining invocation details.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only names three property categories (status/rating/completion) and omits hidden, backlogged, and difficulty. It adds the owner-scoped interpretation, but leaves several parameters dependent on self-explanatory names and schema enums.

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 names a specific operation ('Update'), a precise resource ('personal ROM status/rating/completion properties'), and an authentication scope ('for the token owner'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling update_rom_metadata, which targets shared ROM metadata rather than owner-specific fields.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool for personal, owner-scoped ROM fields, not for general ROM data. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not conditions or alternatives, but the 'personal/token owner' framing is enough to route an agent correctly.

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