update_star_system

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation verb. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are preserved, what happens to child celestial bodies when cosmic_structure_id changes, or what permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema fully documents all five parameters and the one required field, which covers the mechanical calling requirements. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks update semantics (partial vs replace) and side-effect information that a mutation tool of this kind warrants.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'attributes, cosmic structure, or thematic tags' loosely groups name/description, cosmic_structure_id, and themes but adds no semantics beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing star system') and enumerates the field families touched: attributes, cosmic structure, and thematic tags. An agent can distinguish it from create_star_system, get_star_system and delete_star_system, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the system must already exist, id required), and no mention of when to prefer this over update_celestial_body or upsert_star_systems_batch. The only implicit cue is the word 'existing'.

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