update_hobby

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 provides zero transparency about side effects (mutation semantics), partial-update behavior, required id existence, reversibility, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, 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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise, but it's under-specification rather than efficient writing. It's minimal waste, but a one-phrase description doesn't provide enough value for a 2-param tool with a nested object and no annotations. It's terse, not necessarily well-structured.

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 the tool has a nested 'data' object with 8 subfields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify update semantics (merge vs replace), whether related_skills/tags replace or append, and what happens on missing id. None of this is provided. The schema documents the data shape but not the update behavior, which is the key missing context for an update tool.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds nothing about parameters, but the input schema itself is quite thorough (describes id as UUID, describes all nested data fields including name, tags, confidence, etc.). The data object's semantics as a partial vs full replacement is not clarified, but the schema does most of the heavy lifting for parameter meaning.

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 '趣味を更新' (update hobby) states the verb (update) and resource (hobby), conveying the basic purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_hobby, list_hobbies, and delete_hobby, but it's minimal and its clarity relies on the tool name itself. A slightly more descriptive purpose would earn a 4.

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 alternatives. Notably, there's a create_hobby sibling and other update_* tools, but the description gives no context about partial vs full updates, whether the 'data' object replaces the entire entry or merges, or any exclusions. The implied usage (call when you need to modify a hobby) is evident but nothing more.

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