update_life_event

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. For a mutation tool (an 'update'), it doesn't state whether updates are partial (patch-style) or full replacements, whether the existing entry must exist first, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether auth/permissions are needed. The vague '更新' (update) provides minimal behavioral transparency for a write operation.

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 concise Japanese phrase with no wasted words. It's appropriately short, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. One could argue it's too terse given the complexity of the nested data object, but the single sentence is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested data object with 9 documented properties plus id. The description ('Update life event') is severely under-specified for this complexity. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs full), field constraints, or behavior on missing fields. For a write operation of this complexity, the description provides far too little context.

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 50%, with the two required params (id, data) and nested object params (tags, type, title, impact, etc.) documented in the schema with Japanese descriptions. The description itself adds nothing about the parameters. With a nested object and only 50% coverage, the description could have clarified partial vs full update semantics for the data object, but it's silent, landing at baseline level.

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 "ライフイベントを更新" (Update life event) has a clear verb+resource, correctly indicating the tool updates a life event. However, it doesn't meaningfully distinguish itself from siblings like update_custom_entry, update_career_entry, or the create/get/list variants of life events beyond the resource name itself. Context signals show sibling tools exist for get_life_event and list_life_events, so the verb (update vs get/list) helps differentiate.

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 is provided. There's no mention of whether this tool is for partial updates, whether it requires an existing entry, or when one might choose update_life_event over other update_* tools. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., the entry must already exist) or exclusions.

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