update_celestial_body

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not say whether omitted optional fields are left untouched, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens when the id does not resolve. 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the object of the mutation front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks the information needed to call it safely: partial-update semantics, not-found behavior, and result shape are all unstated. Only the schema's required 'id' hints that all other fields are optional.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description's mention of attributes, star system, and thematic tags adds no syntax or semantics beyond that. It notably omits the partial-update question that matters most for five optional fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing celestial body') and enumerates the categories of change: attributes, star system reassignment, and thematic tags. That is enough to distinguish it from create_celestial_body, delete_celestial_body, and get_celestial_body, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with update_cosmic_structure or update_star_system.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the upsert/populate batch variants, no prerequisites (e.g., the body must already exist), and no note on whether this is a partial or full replacement update. Usage is only implied by the word 'existing'.

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