update_values_philosophy

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 gives no hint about update semantics: whether it performs a partial merge or full replacement, whether missing fields are cleared, whether it requires the entry to pre-exist, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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—a single sentence in Japanese. While concise, this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. It says nothing beyond the tool name 'update' + resource type, so it's not truly earning its place by adding information. It's efficient but lacks substance.

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 nested objects, 8 updatable fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does nothing to guide the agent on how to structure updates, what happens to unspecified fields, or return behavior. Given the schema richness (8 fields in data object), the description is inadequate to fully support correct 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 50%—fields like id, title, data are documented in the schema while others are covered too. The description contributes nothing about parameters. The data object and id are both described in the schema reasonably well, and with part of the coverage documented, a baseline 3 is appropriate. The type field's allowed values (value/philosophy/belief/principle) are documented in the schema.

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 '価値観・哲学を更新' (Update values/philosophy) specifies the verb (update) and resource (values/philosophy), making the core purpose clear. However, it's a terse one-liner in Japanese that doesn't distinguish it from the sibling create_values_philosophy or get_values_philosophy beyond the verb, though 'update' does differentiate from those. It's functional but minimal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., must fetch existing entry first), no mention of partial vs full update semantics, and no reference to sibling tools like create_values_philosophy or delete_values_philosophy. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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