update_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not reveal that this is a mutable operation, what happens to unspecified fields (preserved or reset), whether update requires an existing episode, authentication/permission requirements, or error behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a significant 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 extremely short (one token phrase), which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently worded. There is no wasted text, but the brevity reflects lack of substance rather than purposeful economy. A single-sentence description here is too sparse to add value.

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 mutation tool with a complex nested 'data' object (16 fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs merge), the STAR framework context implied by fields like situation/task/action/result, or consequences of updating. The description fails to convey essential usage information that neither schema nor annotations supply.

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 50%, with the 'data' nested object containing 16 fields each having brief descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents. The nested 'data' object is a complex structure without guidance on partial vs full update semantics, and the description doesn't compensate for the 50% coverage gap or clarify how id and data interact.

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 "エピソードを更新" (update episode) states a verb+resource clearly. However, it's a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'update_episode', adding minimal new meaning. It doesn't clarify what an episode is or distinguish it from the many sibling CRUD tools beyond the name itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of whether this is a partial update (PATCH semantics) or full replacement, when episodes should be created vs updated, or any prerequisites for updating an episode. The sibling list has many similar update_* tools but no differentiation is offered.

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