update_tile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update a tile's information') with illustrative examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from examples). It earns its place but isn't perfectly optimized.

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 a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, side effects), doesn't explain return values, and provides minimal guidance. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing examples (title, description, split attributes, etc.) that align with parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'tile's information' with specific examples (title, description, split attributes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tile' (read) and 'split_tile' (different operation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from similar tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tile must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new tiles vs. updating existing ones), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_tree' or 'split_tile' for related operations. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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