updateGame

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns complete updated state, supports nested updates via path notation, and manages game over flags. However, it omits details like persistence, authorization, or atomicity, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently covers purpose, key behavior, and sibling guidance without superfluous detail.

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 appropriately states it returns the complete updated state. It also covers game over conditions and references a sibling tool. Minor gaps exist (e.g., not mentioning update limits), but for a moderate-complexity tool it is reasonably complete.

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 value beyond schema by explaining nested path notation with examples and clarifying the roles of isGameOver and gameOverReason. This elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 a specific field in the game state' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like progressStory by noting when to use that instead. It provides a specific verb and resource with clarification on scope.

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 gives guidance on when to set isGameOver and explicitly mentions using progressStory for narrative advancement, providing context for tool selection. However, it does not cover when to use updateGame versus getGame or createGame, though those are distinct.

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