sign-update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the name's meaning and does not explain mutation effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when coordinates are invalid or the sign is missing. This matches the update_drive pattern where transparency was scored 2.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action. It avoids repeating schema details and has zero waste.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description provides only a bare action statement. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks essential context such as the role of coordinates, the behavior of the 'back' flag, and error cases. A few clarifying sentences are needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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%, so each parameter's meaning (x, y, z, back, text) is already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, fitting the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('text on a sign'), clearly indicating the function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like place-block or write-book by focusing on signs, though it does not explicitly contrast with any alternative.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., block-activate or place-block), nor any prerequisites like proximity to the sign or the need for it to already exist. Context is only implied by the tool's name.

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