update_achievement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to disclose whether this is a partial merge or full replacement, whether unknown fields are ignored or rejected, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to unspecified fields in the data object. For a mutating tool, this is a critical gap.

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 short phrase, which is concise, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. No structure is provided (no sub-points, no caveats, no examples). It earns no credit for clarity since the minimalism comes at the cost of useful information.

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?

This is a nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Given the complexity (nested data object with 10 fields, partial-update semantics), the description should explain what fields are updatable, whether data is a full replace or merge, and typical use. It does none of this, making it inadequate for reliable agent 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 only 50%, meaning half the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. However, the schema itself documents all data sub-fields (url, name, tags, type, year, detail, issuer, metadata, confidence, importance) reasonably well. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the 50% coverage gap. The 'data' object's partial-by-omission semantics are unclear.

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 '実績を更新' (update achievement) is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what an achievement is, what fields are affected, or how this differs from create_achievement/delete_achievement/get_achievement siblings. The resource (achievement) is clear from the name alone, but no additional specificity is added.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create_achievement or other update_* siblings. The description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., must the entry already exist?), partial vs full updates, or when updating is preferable to recreation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name patterns.

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