update_game_pass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key traits: partial update semantics ('only the fields you provide change'), return value ('Returns the updated game pass'), and a security requirement ('Requires an API key scoped to write game passes'). It does not discuss rate limits, idempotency, or failure modes, but these are not critical for a standard mutation 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 exactly three sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: listing updatable fields, explaining update behavior, and stating return value and auth requirements. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage (partial update, auth, return value) and a key cross-parameter constraint. It could mention that 'universeId' and 'gamePassId' are required (though already in schema), but this is minor. The presence of sibling tools for bulk operations is not referenced, but the description still feels complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that only provided fields change and by linking the 'isForSale' and 'priceInRobux' parameters with a specific constraint. It does not explain each parameter individually since the schema already does that adequately.

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 the verb ('Update') and the resource ('an existing game pass'), and names the specific fields that can be modified (name, description, price, on-sale status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_game_pass' or 'get_game_pass'.

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 context for when to use the tool (updating an existing game pass) and includes a conditional guideline ('Putting it on sale... requires a price'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'bulk_update_game_passes' for updating multiple passes, leaving the agent to infer when to use this single-update version.

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