caldera_update_adversary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the partial update behavior (empty fields keep existing values) and returns a JSON string. Missing details about authorization or side effects are acceptable for this tool.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is clear and mostly concise, though the docstring format could be slightly more streamlined.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (context signals indicate existence), the description provides adequate detail for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers parameter semantics and return value.

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 adds significant value. It explains each parameter: adversary_id is a UUID, name is new name, ability_ids is new ordered list, description is new description, with default behaviors clarified.

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 adversary profile.' The verb 'update' and resource 'adversary profile' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create, delete, and list.

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 parameter usage details (e.g., 'leave empty to keep existing') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or deleting. The context of sibling tools helps, but no direct guidance is given.

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