update_persona

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but nothing states whether partial updates are supported, whether the 'data' object fully replaces existing fields, what happens to omitted fields, auth/permission requirements, or return behavior. Zero behavioral transparency.

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?

A single minimal phrase 'ペルソナを更新' with no additional information. While nominally concise, this is under-specification rather than economy—the sentence earns no placement because it contributes essentially nothing beyond the tool name itself.

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 complex mutation tool with a large nested 'data' object (15+ fields), no annotations, and no output schema. Given this complexity, the description is dramatically under-specified. It doesn't explain update semantics, field substitution behavior, or the relationship to server-side persona processing. Far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 2 top-level params (id, data). The 'data' nested object has extensive per-field descriptions, but the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The 'id' parameter is self-documenting. The description neither compensates for the 50% coverage gap nor harms it; baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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?

Description 'ペルソナを更新' (Update persona) is a near-tautology of the tool name 'update_persona'. It identifies the verb (update) and resource (persona) but adds no scope, semantics, or distinction from siblings like create_persona or list_personas. Minimal functional clarity.

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 vs alternatives. With siblings like create_persona, get_persona, list_personas, and list_available_personas, there is no context distinguishing update-from-create (e.g., 'use for existing personas only, requires an existing id') or prerequisites. No implied usage beyond the obvious.

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