update_gameobject

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

The description adds the creation behavior (if GameObject missing), which is good. However, it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or behavior when both instanceId and objectPath are provided. Annotations indicate non-read-only, but the description carries most of the burden.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The key information (verb, resource, alternative identifiers, creation behavior) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and creation nuance but omits return value, error conditions, and behavior for missing instanceId. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds context about creation tied to objectPath, but does not further clarify the relationship between instanceId and objectPath or the structure of gameObjectData.

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 clearly states the tool updates GameObject properties via instance ID or path, and includes the notable creation behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gameobject, delete_gameobject, etc.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_gameobject or delete_gameobject. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or alternative approaches.

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