update_achievement

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'partial update' but does not mention side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., if id not found), or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient for a 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and efficiently conveys the partial update behavior.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or authentication needs. For a partial update tool, more context is needed 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 description coverage is low (25%), with only the id parameter having a description. The tool description does not add meaning to any parameters beyond the schema. It mentions that only supplied fields are changed, but does not explain what each optional field represents.

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 action ('partially update') and the resource ('an achievement'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_achievement and delete_achievement. It specifies that only supplied fields are changed, which is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage for modifying specific fields of an achievement without affecting others, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., delete then add). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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