mempalace_update_drawer

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches the existing drawer first and returns an error if not found, which is useful behavioral information. However, it lacks details about permissions, reversibility, or what happens with omitted fields (beyond the schema). For a tool with no annotations, more disclosure would be better.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a key behavioral note. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. This is an excellent, concise structure.

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 4 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pre-fetch behavior, and error case. It does not describe the return value, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Overall, it is mostly complete but missing return info.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions the optionality and default behavior (omit to keep existing) which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra param semantics.

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 'Update an existing drawer's content and/or metadata (wing, room).' The verb 'update' and specific resource 'drawer' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like mempalace_add_drawer and mempalace_delete_drawer.

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 this tool is for updating existing drawers (by mentioning it fetches the drawer first and errors if not found), which helps differentiate from add or get tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, such as 'Use mempalace_add_drawer to create a new drawer.'

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